Bishop Bull says that ὁμοούσιος is used by standard Greek writers to

signify that which is of the same substance, essence, or nature. And he

shows at large that the term was not invented by the Nicene Fathers, but

was known in its present theological acceptation long before; by

Irenæus, by Origen, (as Dionysius of Alexandria and Athanasius testify,)

by Gregory Thaumaturgus, &c. See the 2nd section of that exhaustive and

irrefragable treatise, the Defensio Fidei Nicænæ. See also _Suicer_ in

voc., from which it appears that the ante-Nicene fathers defined the

word as signifying “that which is of the same nature, essence, eternity,

and energy,” without any difference.

HOOD. The hood as used by us, is partly derived from the monastic

_caputium_, partly from the canonical _amice_, or _almutium_. It was

formerly used by the laity as well as the clergy, and by the monastic

orders. In cathedral and collegiate churches, the hoods of the canons

and prebendaries were frequently lined with fur or wool, and always worn

in the choir. The term _almutium_, or _amice_, was peculiarly applied to

these last. And such is the present usage in foreign churches, where the

capitular canons are generally distinguished from the inferior members,

by the colour or materials of the almuce. (See _Amice_.)—_Palmer._

As used in England and Ireland, it is an ornamental fold that hangs down

the back of a graduate to mark his degree. This part of the dress was

formerly not intended for distinction and ornament, but for use. It was

generally fastened to the back of the cope or other vesture, and in case

of rain or cold was drawn over the head. In the universities the hoods

of the graduates were made to signify their degrees by varying the

colours and materials. The hoods at our three principal universities,

Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, vary considerably from one another: with

this agreement, that all Doctors are distinguished by a scarlet hood,

the linings (at Oxford and Dublin) varying according to the different

faculties. Originally however it would appear that they were the same,

probably till after the Restoration. Masters of Arts had originally fur

hoods, like the proctors at Oxford, whose dress is in fact that of full

costume of a Master of Arts; Bachelors in other faculties wore silk

hoods of some intermediate colour; and Bachelors of Arts stuff hoods

lined with lambs’ wool. The hoods in the Scottish universities followed

the pattern of those of the university of Paris.—_Jebb._

By the 58th canon, every minister saying the public prayers, or

ministering the sacraments, or other rites of the Church, if they are

graduates, shall wear upon their surplice, at such times, such hoods as

by the orders of the universities are agreeable to their degrees.

HOSANNA, signifies as much as _Save now_. The Jews call their feast of

Tabernacles, _Hosanna Rabba_, i. e. the great Hosanna; the origin of

that word is, because on that day they prayed for the salvation and

forgiveness of all the sins of the people. Therefore they used the word

Hosanna in all their prayers; which implies, _Save, I pray_, according

to Buxtorf; but Anthony Nebrissensis observes after Rabbi Elias, that

the Jews call the willow branches, which they carry at the feast,

Hosanna, because they sing Hosanna, shaking them everywhere. And Grotius

observes, that the feasts of the Jews did not only signify their going

out of Egypt, the memory of which they celebrated, but also the

expectation of the MESSIAS: and that still on the day when they carry

those branches, they wished to celebrate that feast at the coming of the

MESSIAS; from whence he concludes, that the people carrying those

branches before our SAVIOUR, showed their joy, acknowledging him to be

the MESSIAS.

HOSPITALS, were houses for the relief of poor and impotent persons, and

were generally incorporated by royal patents, and made capable of gifts

and grants in succession. Some of these in England are very noble

foundations, as St. Cross at Winchester, founded in the reign of King

Stephen, &c. In most cathedral towns there are hospitals, often

connected with the cathedrals. Christ’s Hospital in London was one of

those many excellent endowments, to which the funds of alienated

monasteries would have been more largely directed, had secular avarice

permitted.

HOSPITALLERS, or Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. Knights who took

their name from an hospital built in Jerusalem for the use of pilgrims

coming to the Holy Land. They were to provide for such pilgrims, and to

protect them on the road. They came to England in the year 1100, and

here they arrived to such power that their superior had a seat in the

House of Lords, and ranked as the first lay baron.

HOSPITIUM, or _Domus Hospitium_. In ancient monasteries, the place where

pilgrims and other strangers were received and entertained.

HOST. (See _Transubstantiation_.) From _hostia_, a victim. The bread

used by the Roman Catholic Church in the celebration of the eucharist.

It is unleavened, thin, flat, and of circular form, and has certain

mystic signs impressed on it. Romanists worship the host, under a false

presumption that the elements are no longer bread and wine, but

transubstantiated into the real body and blood of CHRIST.

HOSTIARIUS. (See _Ostiarius_.) The second master in some of the old

endowed schools, as Winchester, is so called. Hence _usher_.

HOUR GLASS. The usual length of sermons in the English Church, from the

Reformation till the latter part of the seventeenth century, was an

hour. Puritans preached much longer—two, three, and even four hours. For

the measurement of the time of sermon, hour glasses were frequently

attached to pulpits, and in some churches the stand for the glass, if

not the instrument itself, still remains.

HOURS OF PRAYER. The Church of England, at the revision of our offices

in the reign of Edward VI., only prescribed public worship in the

morning and evening: and in making this regulation she was perfectly

justified: for though it is the duty of Christians to pray continually,

yet the precise times and seasons of prayer, termed Canonical Hours, do

not rest on any Divine command; neither have they ever been pronounced

binding on all Churches by any general council; neither has there been

any uniformity in the practice of the Christian Church in this respect.

The hours of prayer before the Reformation were seven in number,—matins,

the first, third, sixth, and ninth hours, vespers, and compline. The

office of matins, or morning prayer, according to the Church of England,

is a judicious abridgment of her ancient services for matins, lauds, and

prime; and the office of even-song, or evening prayer, in like manner,

is an abridgment of the ancient service for vespers and compline. Both

these offices have received several improvements in imitation of the

ancient discipline of the Churches of Egypt, Gaul, and Spain.—_Palmer._

The offices for the third, sixth, and ninth hours, were shorter than the

others, and were nearly the same every day. Bishop Cosin drew up, by

royal command, a form of devotion for private use for the different

canonical hours. It is supposed that the seven hours of prayer took

their rise from the example of the psalm, “Seven times a day do I give

thanks unto thee;” but the ancient usage of the Church does not sanction

more than two or three times for stated _public_ prayer. (See _Primer_.)

HOUSEL. (_Saxon._) The blessed eucharist. Johnson derives it from the

Gothic _hunsel_, a sacrifice, or _hostia_, dim. _hostiola_, Latin. Todd,

in his emendations, remarks on the verb to housel, that an old

lexicography defines it specially, “to administer the communion to one

who lieth on his death-bed.” It was, perhaps, in later times more

generally used in this sense: still it was often employed, as we find

from Chaucer, and writers as late as the time of Henry VIII., as in

Saxon times, to signify absolutely the receiving of the

eucharist.—_Jebb._

HUGUENOTS. A name by which the French Protestants were distinguished,

very early in their history. The name is of uncertain derivation; some

deduce it from one of the gates of the city of Tours, called _Hugon’s_,

at which these Protestants held their first assemblies; others from the

words _Huc nos_, with which their original protest commenced; others

from the German, _Eidgenossen_, (associated by oath,) which first became

_Egnots_ and afterwards _Huguenots_.

The origin of the sect in France dates from the reign of Francis I.,

when the principles and doctrines of the German Reformers found many

disciples among their Gallic neighbours. As everywhere else, so in

France, the new doctrines spread with great rapidity, and called forth

the energies both of Church and State to repress them. Both Francis and

his successor, Henry II., placed the Huguenots under various penal

disabilities, and they were subjected to the violence of the factious

French among their opponents, without protection from the State: but the

most terrible deed of horror which was perpetrated against them was the

massacre of St. Bartholomew’s day. (See _Bartholomew_.) A scene which

stands recorded in history, as if to teach us to how great a depth of

cruelty and oppression mankind may be driven by fanaticism.

In the reign of Henry IV. the Huguenots were protected by the edict of

Nantes, which was revoked, however, in 1685, by Cardinal Mazarin, the

minister of Louis XIV.: on this occasion 500,000 of this persecuted race

took refuge in the neighbouring Protestant states. At the Revolution,

the Huguenots were restored to their civil rights, so far as civil

rights were left to any citizens of a libertine and infidel state: and

at present their ministers, like those of all Christian sects, are paid

a scanty pittance by the State.

In doctrine and discipline the Huguenots symbolized with Calvin, and the

sect which he originated at Geneva.

HULSEAN LECTURES. Lectures delivered at Cambridge, under the will of the

Rev. John Hulse, late of Elworth, bearing date the 12th day of July,

1777. The number, originally twenty, is now reduced to eight.

HUMANITY OF OUR LORD, is his possessing a true human body and a true

human soul. (See _Jesus_.)

HUSSITES. The followers of John Huss, of Bohemia, who maintained

Wickliff’s opinions in 1407, with wonderful zeal. The emperor Sigismond

sent to him, to persuade him to defend his doctrine before the Council

of Constance, which he did A. D. 1414, having obtained a passport and an

assurance of safe conduct from the emperor. There were seven months

spent in examining him, and two bishops were sent into Bohemia, to

inform themselves of the doctrine he preached; and for his firm

adherence to the same, he was condemned to be burnt alive with his

books, which sentence was executed in 1415, contrary to the

safe-conduct, which the Council of Constance basely said that the

emperor was not bound to keep to a heretic. His followers believed that

the Church consisted only of those predestinated to glory, and that the

reprobates were no part of it; that the condemnation of the five and

forty articles of Wickliff was wicked and unreasonable. Moreri adds,

that they partly afterwards subdivided, and opposed both their bishops

and secular princes in Bohemia; where, if we must take his word, they

were the occasion of great disorders and civil commotions in the

fifteenth century.

HUTCHINSONIANS. “The name of Hutchinsonians,” says Jones of Nayland,

who, with Bishops Horne and Horsley, was the most distinguished of those

who bore the name, “was given to those gentlemen who studied Hebrew, and

examined the writings of John Hutchinson, Esq., [born at Spennythorpe,

in Yorkshire, 1674,] and became inclined to favour his opinions in

theology and philosophy. The theological opinions of these divines, so

far as they were distinguished from those of their own age, related

chiefly to the explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity, [see Note L.

to Dr. Mill’s five Sermons on the Temptation of Christ,] and to the

manner in which they confirmed Divine revelation generally, by reference

to the natural creation. The notion of a Trinity, it was maintained, was

the token from the three agents in the system of nature, fire, light,

and air, on which all natural light and motion depend, and which were

said to signify the three supreme powers of the GODHEAD in the

administration of the spiritual world. This led to their opposing

Newton’s theory of a vacuum and gravity, and to their denying that most

matter is, like the mind, capable of active qualities, and to their

ascribing attraction, repulsion, &c., to subtle causes not immaterial.

In natural philosophy they maintained that the present condition of the

earth bears evident marks of an universal flood, and that extraneous

fossils are to be accounted for by the same catastrophe. They urged

great precaution in the study of classical heathen literature, under the

conviction that it had tended to produce pantheistic notions, then so

popular. They also looked with some suspicion upon what is called

natural religion, and to many passages of Scripture they gave a

figurative, rather than a literal, interpretation.—See _Jones’s Life of

Bishop Horne_.

The learned and pious Parkhurst was a Hutchinsonian; and his peculiar

opinions not a little influenced his etymological conjectures, though in

no way interfering with his orthodoxy and sound scholarship.

HYMN. A song of adoration. It is certain from Holy Scripture, that the

Christians were wont to sing hymns in the apostles’ time; and it is

probable that St. Ignatius appointed them to be sung by each side of the

choir. It is probable also that the place of these hymns was, as now,

after the lessons: for St. Ambrose notes, that as, after one angel had

published the gospel, a multitude joined with him in praising GOD, so,

when one minister hath read the gospel, all the people glorify GOD. The

same appears to have been the custom from St. Augustine, and from a

constitution of the Council of Laodicea, in the year 365. As for the

particular hymns of our Church, they are, as of old in the primitive

Church, generally taken out of Scripture; yet as they also made use of

some hymns not found in Scripture, so do we.

Hymns may be said to consist of three kinds: (1.) Metrical, such as were

in use in the daily service of the unreformed Church. Of this kind there

is but one formally authorized by the Church of England, viz. the _Veni

Creator_. (2.) Canticles, appointed to be said or sung in the daily

service, and divided into verses, and pointed, like the Psalms. The _Te

Deum_, and the _Benedictus_, are so expressly called in the Prayer Book;

and such by implication are the _Benedicite_, (called a canticle,) the

_Magnificat_, and _Nunc Dimittis_. (3.) Those portions of the Communion

Service which are appointed to be said or sung, but not arranged like

the Canticles: as the _Tersanctus_, and the _Gloria in Excelsis_. St.

Paul (Eph. v. 19, and Col. iii. 16) speaks of psalms, and hymns, and

spiritual songs. The first of these words would seem to refer to the

_mizmor_, or psalm, properly so called; the second to the _tehikah_, or

jubilant song of praise; the last to the _shir_, or song; all of which

words occur both in the titles, and the text, of the Book of Psalms.

(See _Song_.)

HYPERDULIA. (See _Dulia_ and _Idolatry_.)

HYPOSTASIS. A theological Christian term, for the true knowledge of the

meaning of which take this short account. The Greeks took it in the

first three centuries for _particular substance_, and therefore said

there were three _hypostases_, that is, three “Persons,” according to

the Latins. Where some of the Eastern people understanding the word

_hypostases_ in another sense, would not call the Persons three

_hypostases_. Athanasius showed them in a council held at Alexandria in

362, that they all said the same thing, and that all the difference was,

that they gave to the same word two different significations: and thus

he reconciled them together. It is evident that the word _hypostasis_

signifies two things: first, an individual particular substance;

secondly, a common nature or essence. Now when the Fathers say there are

“three hypostases,” their meaning is to be judged from the time they

lived in; if it be one of the three first centuries, they meant all

along three distinct agents, of which the FATHER was supreme. If one of

much later date uses the expression, he means, most probably, little

more than a mode of existence in a common nature.

HYPOSTATICAL UNION. The union of the human nature of our LORD with the

Divine; constituting two natures in one person, and not two persons in

one nature, as the Nestorians assert. (See _Union_.)

HYPOTHETICAL, This term is sometimes used in relation to a baptism

administered to a child, of whom it is uncertain whether he has been

already baptized or not. The rubric states, that “if they who bring the

infant to the church do make such uncertain answers to the priest’s

questions, as that it cannot appear that the child was baptized with

water, in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY

GHOST,” then the priest, on performing the baptism, is to use this form

of words, viz. “If thou art not already baptized, N——, I baptize thee in

the name,” &c.

This, therefore, is called an _hypothetical_ or _conditional_ form,

being used only on the supposition that the child may not have already

received baptism.

HYPSISTARIANS. Heretics in the fourth century of Christianity. According

to Gregory Nazianzen, (whose own father had once been a member of the

sect, but afterwards became a Christian bishop,) they made a mixture of

the Jewish religion and paganism, for they worshipped fire with the

pagans, and observed the sabbath, and legal abstinence from meats, with

the Jews.

ICONOCLASTS, or IMAGE BREAKERS. (See _Images_, _Image Worship_, and

_Idolatry_.) From εἰκὼν, _an image_, and κλάω, _to break_. A name given

to the image-breakers in the eighth century. _Sarantapechs_, or

_Serantampicus_, a Jew, persuaded _Ezidus_, or _Gizidus_, king of the

Arabs, to take the images of saints out of churches that belonged to the

Christians: and some time after, _Bazere_, [but Baronius writes

_Beser_,] becoming a Mahometan in Syria, where he was a slave,

insinuated himself so much into the favour of Leo Isauricus, that this

prince, at his and the persuasion of other Jews, who had foretold him

his coming to the empire, declared against images, about 726, ordered

the statue of CHRIST, placed over one of the gates of the city, to be

thrown down, and being enraged at a tumult occasioned thereby, issued a

proclamation wherein he abolished the use of statues, and menaced the

worshippers with severe punishments; and all the solicitations of

Germanus the patriarch, and of the bishop of Rome, could prevail nothing

in their favour. His son and successor Constantine forbade praying to

saints or the Virgin; he set at nought the pope, and assembled a

council, in which his proceedings were approved; but this council, being

condemned at Rome, the emperor strove more than ever to gain his point.

Leo IV. succeeded in 775, and reigned but four years, leaving his son

Constantine under the tutelage of the empress Irene. In her time, A. D.

787, was held the second Council of Nice, in which, according to

Baronius, a request was made that the image of CHRIST and of the saints

might be restored. But Spanheim says that Philip the emperor, and John,

patriarch of Constantinople, having rejected the sixth general council

against the Monotheletes in 712, took away the pictures of the Fathers

of that and the former councils, hung up by the emperor Justinian, in

the portico of St. Sophia; and that the pope thereupon, in a synod at

Rome, ordered the like images to be placed in St. Peter’s church, and

thenceforth worshipped; their use until that time being purely

historical. The Saracens, offended at that superstition, persecuted the

Christians; and Leo calling a synod issued a proclamation, condemning

the worship of images, but granting that they might be hung up in

churches, the better to prevent idolatry; and upon a further dispute

with Pope Gregory II., who excommunicated him, and absolved his subjects

from their obedience in 730, he commanded that they should be quite

taken down and destroyed. Constantine Copronymus followed his father’s

example, and in the thirteenth year of his reign, anno 744, assembled

the seventh general council of the Greeks, wherein images and their

worshippers were condemned. His son Leo IV. followed his steps, who, at

his death, leaving the empress Irene to administer the state during the

minority of Constantine VII., she, to gain the monks over to her

interest, made use of them to restore images, advanced Tarasius from a

laic to be patriarch of Constantinople, and so managed the council which

she called at Nice, that they decreed several sorts of worship to

images; as salutation, incense, kissing, wax lights, &c., but neither

approved images of the Trinity, statues, nor any carved work.

Constantine being of age, and opposing this procedure, was barbarously

deprived of his sight and life by his unnatural mother Irene; an act

which is commended by Cardinal Baronius, who declared the emperor Leo

incapable of the crown, which he calls a rare example to posterity not

to suffer heretical princes to reign. On the other side, the popes

imitated their predecessors in their hatred to the Greek emperors, whom

they despoiled of their exarchate of Ravenna, and their other

possessions in Italy, which, by the help of the French, was turned into

St. Peter’s patrimony; but that the French, Germans, and other northern

countries, abhorred image worship, is plain by the capitulary of

Charlemagne against images, and the acts of the synod of Frankfort under

that prince, who also wrote four books to Pope Adrian against image

worship, and the illegal Council of Nice above mentioned. Image worship

was also opposed by other emperors who succeeded; as also by the

Churches of Italy, Germany, France, and Britain, particularly by the

learned Alcuin.

IDES. A word occurring in the Roman calendar, inserted in all correct

editions of the Prayer Book. The ides were eight days in each month: in

March, May, July, and October, the ides ended on the 15th, and in all

other months, on the 13th day. The word Ides, taken from the Greek,

(ειἶδος,) means an aspect or appearance, and was primarily used to

denote the full moon. The system of the original Roman calendar was

founded on the change of the moon, the nones being the completion of the

first quarter, as the ides were of the second.—_Stephens, Book of Common

Prayer; Notes on the Calendar._

IDOLATRY. (See _Images_ and _Iconoclasts_.) From εἶδωλον, _an idol_, and

λατρεία, _worship_. The worship of idols. This is one of the crying sins

of the Church of Rome. Palmer, in his Essay on the Church, mentions some

of the idolatries and heresies which are held without censure in the

Roman communion.

I. It is maintained without censure that Latria, or the worship paid to

the Divine nature, is also due to—

Images of CHRIST;

Images of the Trinity;

Images of GOD the FATHER;

Relics of the blood, flesh, hair, and nails of CHRIST;

Relics of the true cross;

Relics of the nails, spear, sponge, scourge, reed, pillar, linen, cloth,

napkin of Veronica, seamless coat, purple robe, inscription on the

cross, and other instruments of the passion;

Images of the cross;

The Bible;

The Blessed Virgin.

All these creatures ought, according to the doctrines taught commonly

and without censure in the Roman communion, to receive the very worship

paid to GOD.

II. Divine honours are practically offered to the Virgin and to all the

saints and angels. It has been repeatedly and clearly shown, that they

are addressed in exactly the same terms in which we ought to address

GOD; that the same sort of confidence is expressed in their power; that

they are acknowledged to be the authors of grace and salvation. These

idolatries are generally practised without opposition or censure.

III. The Virgin is blasphemously asserted to be superior to GOD the SON,

and to command him. She is represented as the source of all grace, while

believers are taught to look on JESUS with dread. The work of redemption

is said to be divided between her and our LORD.

IV. It is maintained that justification leaves the sinner subject to the

wrath and vengeance of GOD.

V. That the temporal afflictions of the righteous are caused by the

wrath of an angry GOD.

VI. That the righteous suffer the tortures of hell-fire after death.

VII. That the sacrifice of CHRIST on the cross is repeated or continued

in the eucharist.

These and other errors contrary to faith are inculcated within

the communion of the Roman Church, without censure or open

opposition.—_Palmer._

ILE. (See _Aisle_.) The passages in a church, parallel to the nave, from

which they are separated by rows of columns and piers, being narrower

and lower. The same term is applied to the side passages which sometimes

mark the transept and the choir. The aisles of the apin are more

properly called the ambulatory. The aisles were adopted from the ancient

Basilicas, in which they are for the most part found. They are of

comparatively rare occurrence in the Oriental churches. The word is

derived from the Latin _ala_, which was used in an architectural sense

to mean a side building, as we use _wing_. Thus Vitruvius, as quoted by

Facciolati; “In ædificiis _alæ_ dicuntur structura ad latria ædium,

dextra, et sinistra protensæ, ut columnarum ordines, vel porticus; quas

Græci quoque πτερὰ et πτέρυγας appellant.” And thus in French, the same

word _aile_ signifies a wing and a church aisle.

ILLUMINATI, or ALLUMBRADOS. Certain Spanish heretics who began to appear

in the world about 1575; but the authors being severely punished, this

sect was stifled, as it were, until 1623, and then awakened with more

vigour in the diocese of Seville. The edict against them specifies

seventy-six different errors, whereof the principal are, that with the

assistance of mental prayer and union with GOD, (which they boasted of,)

they were in such a state of perfection as not to need either good

works, or the sacraments of the Church. Soon after these were

suppressed, a new sect, under the same name, appeared in France. These,

too, were entirely extinguished in the year 1635. Among other

extravagances, they held that friar Antony Bocquet had a system of

belief and practice revealed to him which exceeded all that was in

Christianity; that by virtue of that method, people might improve to the

same degree of perfection and glory that saints and the Virgin Mary had;

that none of the doctors of the Church knew anything of devotion; that

St. Peter was a good, well-meaning man only; St. Paul never heard scarce

anything of devotion; that the whole Church lay in darkness and

misbelief; that GOD regarded nothing but himself; that within ten years

their notions would prevail all the world over; and then there would be

no occasion for priests, monks, or any religious distinctions.

IMAGES. In the religious sense of the word, there appears to have been

little or no use of images in the Christian Church for the first three

or four hundred years, as is evident from the silence of all ancient

authors, and of the heathens themselves, who never recriminated, or

charged the use of images on the primitive Christians. There are

positive proofs in the fourth century, that the use of images was not

allowed; particularly, the Council of Eliberis decrees that pictures

ought not to be put in churches, _lest that which is worshipped be

painted upon the walls_. Petavius gives this general reason for the

prohibition of all images whatever at that time—because the remembrance

of idolatry was yet fresh in men’s minds. About the latter end of the

fourth century, pictures of saints and martyrs began to creep into the

churches. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, ordered his church to be painted

with Scripture histories, such as those of Esther, Job, Tobit, and

Judith. And St. Augustine often speaks of the pictures of Abraham

offering his son Isaac, and those of St. Peter and St. Paul, but without

approving the use of them; on the contrary he tells us, the Church

condemned such as paid a religious veneration to pictures, and daily

endeavoured to correct them, as untoward children.

It was not till after the second Council of Nice that images of GOD, or

the Trinity, were allowed in churches. Pope Gregory II., who was

otherwise a great stickler for images, in that very epistle which he

wrote to the emperor Leo to defend the worship of them, denies it to be

lawful to make any image of the Divine nature. Nor did the ancient

Christians approve of massy images, or statues of wood, metal, or stone,

but only pictures or paintings to be used in churches, and those

symbolical rather than any other. Thus, a lamb was the symbol of JESUS

CHRIST, and a dove of the HOLY GHOST. But the sixth general council

forbade the picturing CHRIST any more under the figure of a lamb, and

ordered that he should be represented by the effigies of a man. By this

time, it is presumed, the worship of images was begun, anno 692.

The worship of images occasioned great contests both in the Eastern and

Western Churches. (See _Iconoclasts_.) Nicephorus, who had wrested the

empire from Irene, in the year 802, maintained the worship of images.

The emperor Michael, in 813, declared against the worship of images, and

expelled Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, Theodorus Studita,

Nicetas, and others, who had asserted it. Michael II., desiring to

re-establish peace in the East, proposed to assemble a council, to which

both the Iconoclasts (those who broke down images) and the asserters of

image worship should be admitted; but the latter refusing to sit with

heretics, as they called the Iconoclasts, the emperor found out a

medium. He left all men free to worship or not worship images, and

published a regulation, forbidding the taking of crosses out of the

churches, to put images in their place; the paying of adoration to the

images themselves; the clothing of statues; the making them godfathers

and godmothers to children; the lighting candles before them, and

offering incense to them, &c. Michael sent ambassadors into the West to

get this regulation approved. These ministers applied themselves to

Louis le Debonnaire, who sent an embassy to Rome upon this subject. But

the Romans, and Pope Pascal I., did not admit of the regulation; and a

synod, held at Paris in 824, was of opinion, that though the use of

images ought not to be prohibited, yet it was not allowable to pay them

any religious worship. At length the emperor Michael settled his

regulation in the East; and his son Theophilus, who succeeded him in the

year 829, held a council at Constantinople, in which the Iconoclasts

were condemned, and the worship of images restored. It does not appear

that there was any controversy afterwards about images. The French and

Germans used themselves, by degrees, to pay an outward honour to images,

and conformed to the Church of Rome.

Image worship is one great article of modern Popery. “No sooner is a man

advanced a little forward into their churches, (says a modern author,

speaking of the Roman Catholics,) and begins to look about him, but he

will find his eyes and attention attracted by the number of lamps and

wax candles, which are constantly burning before the shrines and images

of their saints; a sight which will not only surprise a stranger by the

novelty of it, but will furnish him with one proof and example of the

conformity of the Romish with the Pagan worship, by recalling to his

memory many passages of the heathen authors, where their perpetual lamps

and candles are described as continually burning before the altars and

statues of their deities.” The Romanists believe that the saint to whom

the image is dedicated presides in a particular manner about its shrine,

and works miracles by the intervention of its image; insomuch that, if

the image were destroyed or taken away, the saint would no longer

perform any miracle in that place. This is exactly the notion of

Paganism, that the gods resided in their statues or images. “Minucius

Felix, rallying the gods of the heathens, (they are M. Jurieu’s words,)

says: _Ecce funditur, fabricatur; nondum Deus est. Ecce plumbatur,

construitur, erigitur: nec adhuc Deus. Ecce ornatur, consecratur,

oratur; tum postremo Deus est_. I am mistaken if the same thing may not

be said of the Romish saints. _They cast an image, they work it with a

hammer; it is not yet a saint. They set it upright, and fasten it with

lead; neither is it yet a saint. They adorn, consecrate, and dedicate

it; behold, at last, a complete saint!_”

By a decree of the Council of Trent, it is forbidden to set up any

extraordinary and unusual image in the churches, without the bishop’s

approbation first obtained. As to the consecration of images, they

proceed in the same manner as at the benediction of a new cross. At

saying the prayer, the saint, whom the image represents, is named: after

which the priest sprinkles the image with holy water. But when an image

of the Virgin Mary is to be blessed, it is thrice incensed, besides

sprinkling: to which are added the _Ave Mary_, psalms, and anthems, and

a double sign of the cross.

The Roman Catholics talk much of the miraculous effects of the images of

their saints, forgetting that lying wonders are a sign of Antichrist.

The image of JESUS CHRIST, which, feeling itself wounded with a dagger

by an impious wretch, laid its hand upon the wound, is famous at Naples.

The image of St. Catharine of Siena has often driven out devils, and

wrought other miracles. Our Lady of Lucca, insolently attacked by a

soldier, (who threw stones at her, and had nearly broken the holy

child’s head, which she held on her right arm,) immediately set it on

her left; and the child liked sitting on that arm so well, that, since

that accident, he has never changed his situation.—_Broughton._

IMAGE WORSHIP. All the points of doctrine or practice in which the

Church of Rome differs from the Church of England are novelties,

introduced gradually in the middle ages: of these the worship of images

is the earliest practice, which received the sanction of what the

Papists call a general council, though the second Council of Nice, A. D.

787, was in fact _no_ general council. As this is the earliest authority

for any of the Roman peculiarities, and as the Church of England at that

early period was remarkably concerned in resisting the novelty, it may

not be out of place to mention the circumstances as they are concisely

stated by Perceval. The emperor Charlemagne, who was very much offended

at the decrees of this council in favour of images, sent a copy of them

into England. Alcuin, a most learned member of the Church of England,

attacked them, and having produced Scriptural authority against them,

transmitted the same to Charlemagne in the name of the bishops of the

Church of England. Roger Hoveden, Simon of Durham, and Matthew of

Westminster, mention the fact, and speak of the worship of images as

being execrated by the whole Church. Charlemagne, pursuing his hostility

to the Nicene Council, drew up four books against it, and transmitted

them to Pope Adrian; who replied to them in an epistle “concerning

images, against those who impugn the Nicene Synod,” as the title is

given, together with the epistle itself, in the seventh volume of Labbe

and Cossart’s Councils. The genuineness of these books is admitted by

all the chief Roman writers. For the purpose of considering the subject

more fully, Charlemagne assembled a great council of _British_,

Gallican, German, and Italian bishops at Frankfort, at which two legates

from the bishop of Rome were present; where, after mature deliberation,

the decrees of the soi-disant general Council of Nice, notwithstanding

Pope Adrian’s countenance, were “_rejected_,” “_despised_,” and

“_condemned_.” The synod at Frankfort remains a monument of a noble

stand in defence of the ancient religion, in which the Church of England

had an honourable share, occupying, a thousand years ago, the self-same

ground we now maintain, of protesting against Roman corruptions of the

Catholic faith.

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. (See _Conception, Immaculate_.)

IMMERSION. A mode of administering the sacrament of baptism, by which

first the right side, then the left, then the face, are dipped in the

font. Immersion is the mode of baptizing first prescribed in our office

of public baptism; but it is permitted to pour water upon the child, if

the godfathers and godmothers certify that the child is weak. (See

_Affusion_.)

IMMOVEABLE FEASTS. (See _Moveable Feasts_.)

IMPANATION. A term (like transubstantiation and consubstantiation) used

to designate a false notion of the manner of the presence of the body

and blood of our blessed LORD in the holy eucharist.

This word is formed from the Latin _panis_ (bread), as the word

incarnation is formed from the Latin _caro_, _carnis_ (flesh): and as

_incarnation_ signifies the eternal Word’s becoming flesh, or taking our

nature for the purpose of our redemption; so does _impanation_ signify

the Divine person JESUS CHRIST, GOD and man, becoming _bread_ [_and

wine_], or taking the nature of bread, for the purposes of the holy

eucharist: so that, as in the one Divine person JESUS CHRIST there were

two perfect natures, GOD and man; so in the eucharistic elements,

according to the doctrine expressed by the word _impanation_, there are

two perfect natures—one of the DIVINE SON of the Blessed Virgin, and

another of the eucharistic elements; the two natures being one, not in a

figurative, but in a real and literal sense, by a kind of hypostatical

union.

It does not occur to us that there is any sect which holds this false

notion; but there are some individuals to whom it seems the true method

of reconciling those apparent oppositions, (which are of the very

essence of a mystery,) which occur in the Catholic statement of the

doctrine of the holy eucharist. The nearest approach to the doctrine of

_impanation_ avowed by any sect, is that of the Lutherans. (See

_Consubstantiation._)

IMPLICIT FAITH. The faith which is given without reserve or examination,

such as the Church of Rome requires of her members. The reliance we have

on the Church of England is grounded on the fact, that she undertakes to

prove that all her doctrines are Scriptural, but the Church of Rome

requires credence on her own authority. The Church of England places the

Bible as an authority above the Church, the Church of Rome makes the

authority of the Church co-ordinate with that of the Bible. The Romish

divines teach that we are to observe, not how the Church proves

anything, but what she says: that the will of GOD is, that we should

believe and confide in his ministers in the same manner as himself.

Cardinal Toletus, in his instructions for priests, asserts, “that if a

rustic believes his bishop proposing an heretical tenet for an article

of faith, such belief is meritorious.” Cardinal Cusanus tells us, “That

irrational obedience is the most consummate and perfect obedience, when

we obey without attending to reason, as a beast obeys his driver.” In an

epistle to the Bohemians he has these words: “I assert that there are no

precepts of CHRIST but those which are received as such by the Church

(meaning the Church of Rome). When the Church changes her judgment, GOD

changes his judgment likewise.”

IMPOSITION, or LAYING ON OF HANDS. St. Paul (Heb. vi. 2) speaks of the

doctrine of laying on of hands as one of the fundamentals of

Christianity: it is an ecclesiastical action, by which a blessing is

conveyed from GOD through his minister to a person prepared by

repentance and faith to receive it. It is one of the most ancient forms

in the world, sanctioned by the practice of Jacob, Moses, the apostles,

and our blessed LORD himself. It is the form by which the bishop conveys

his blessing in confirmation.

This ceremony has been always esteemed so essential a part of

ordination, that any other way of conferring orders without it has been

judged invalid. The imposition of hands undoubtedly took its rise from

the practice of the Jewish Church, in initiating persons for performing

any sacred office, or conferring any employ of dignity or power. Thus

Joshua was inaugurated to his high office. (Numb. xxvii. 23.) Hence the

Jews derived their custom of ordaining their rabbis by imposition of

hands. The same ceremony we find used by the apostles, as often as they

admitted any new members into the ministry of the Church. For, when they

ordained the first deacons, it is recorded, that after praying “they

laid hands on them.” (Acts vi. 6.) At the ordination of Barnabas and

Paul it is said, that they “fasted and prayed and laid their hands on

them.” (Acts xiii. 3.) When St. Paul bids Timothy have regard to the

graces conferred in his ordination, he observes that these were

conferred by imposition of hands: “Neglect not the gift that is in thee,

which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the

presbytery.” (1 Tim. iv. 14.) And in his other Epistle he exhorts him to

“stir up the gift of GOD which was in him by the putting on of his

hands.” (2 Tim. i. 6.) The primitive Christians, following exactly after

this copy, never admitted any into orders but with this ceremony: so

that the ancient councils seldom use any other word for ordination than

“imposition of hands;” and the ancient writers of the Church signify,

that the clerical character, and the gifts of the SPIRIT, were conferred

by this action.

It must be observed here, that the imposition of the bishop’s hand alone

is required in the ordination of a deacon, in conformity to the usage of

the ancient Church.—_Dr. Nicholls._

This was always a distinction between the three superior and five

inferior orders, that the first were given by imposition of hands, and

the second were not.—_Dr. Burn._

IMPROPRIATION. Ecclesiastical property, the profits of which are in the

hands of a layman; thus distinguished from _appropriation_, which is

when the profits of a benefice are in the hands of a college, &c.

Impropriations have arisen from the confiscation of monasteries in the

time of Henry VIII., when, instead of restoring the tithes to

ecclesiastical uses, they were given to rapacious laymen. Archbishop

Laud exerted himself greatly to buy up impropriations.

IMPUTATION. The attributing a character to a person which he does not

really possess; thus, when in holy baptism we are justified, the

righteousness is imputed as well as imparted to us. The imputation which

respects our justification before GOD, is GOD’S gracious reckoning of

the righteousness of CHRIST to believers, and his acceptance of these

persons as righteous on that account; their sins being imputed to him,

and his obedience being imputed to them. Rom. iv. 6, 7; v. 18, 19; 2

Cor. v. 21. (See _Faith_ and _Justification_.)

INCARNATION. The act whereby the SON of GOD assumed the human nature; or

the mystery by which the Eternal Word was made man, in order to

accomplish the work of our salvation.

The doctrine of the incarnation as laid down in the third General

Council, that of Ephesus, (A. D. 431,) is as follows:—“The great and

holy synod (of Nice) said, that he ‘who was begotten of the FATHER, as

the only-begotten SON by nature; who was true GOD of true GOD, Light of

light, by whom the FATHER made all things; that he descended, became

incarnate, and was made man, suffered, rose on the third day, and

ascended into the heavens.’ These words and doctrines we ought to

follow, in considering what is meant by the Word of GOD being ‘incarnate

and made man.’

“We do not say that the nature of the Word was converted and became

flesh; nor that it was changed into perfect man, consisting of body and

soul: but rather, that the Word, uniting to himself _personally_ flesh,

animated by a rational soul, became man in an ineffable and

incomprehensible manner, and became the SON of man, not merely by will

and affection, nor merely by the assumption of one aspect or appearance;

but that different natures were joined in a real unity, and that there

is one CHRIST and SON, of two natures; the difference of natures not

being taken away by their union.... It is said also, that he who was

before all ages and begotten of the FATHER, was ‘born according to the

flesh, of a woman:’ not as if his Divine nature had taken its beginning

from the Holy Virgin ... but because for us, and for our salvation, he

united personally to himself the nature of man, and proceeded from a

woman; therefore he is said to be ‘born according to the flesh.’... So

also we say that he ‘suffered and rose again,’ not as if GOD the Word

had suffered in his own nature the stripes, the nails, or the other

wounds; for the GODHEAD cannot suffer, as it is incorporeal: but because

that which had become his own body suffered, he is said to suffer those

things for us. For he who was incapable of suffering was in a suffering

body. In like manner we understand his ‘death.’... Because his own body,

by the grace of GOD, as Paul saith, tasted death for every man, he is

said to suffer death,” &c.

INCENSE. The use of incense in connexion with the eucharist was unknown

in the Church until the time of Gregory the Great, in the latter part of

the sixth century. It then became prevalent in the Church, but has been

long disused by the Church of England.—_Bingham._

INCOMPREHENSIBLE. In the Athanasian Creed it is said, that “the FATHER

is incomprehensible, the SON incomprehensible, the HOLY GHOST

incomprehensible;” which means that the FATHER is illimitable, the SON

illimitable, the HOLY GHOST illimitable. At the time when this creed was

translated, the word _incomprehensible_ was not confined to the sense it

now bears, of _inconceivable_, or _beyond the reach of our

understanding_; but it then meant, _not comprehended within limits_.

INCORRUPTICOLÆ, or _Aphthartodocetæ_, or _Phantasiastæ_. Heretics who

had their original at Alexandria, in the time of the emperor Justinian.

The beginning of the controversy was among the Eutychians, whether the

body of CHRIST was corruptible or incorruptible from his conception:

Severus held it corruptible; Julian of Halicarnassus held the contrary,

that our LORD’S body was not obnoxious to hunger, thirst, or weariness;

and that he did but seemingly suffer such things; from whence they were

called _Phantasiastæ_. The emperor Justinian, in the very end of his

reign, favoured these heretics, and persecuted the orthodox.

INCUMBENT. He who is in present possession of a benefice.

INDEPENDENTS. Like the Presbyterians, the Independents sprang from

Puritanism, and were originally formed in Holland, about the year 1610,

but their distinguishing doctrine seems to have been previously

maintained in England by the Brownists, who were banished, or emigrated,

in 1593.

The Independent idea of the word “Church,” says Adam, from whom this

article is abridged, is, that it is never used but in two senses—as

including the whole body of the redeemed, whether in heaven or in earth,

who are called “the general assembly,” &c. (Heb. xii. 23); and, again,

“the whole family in heaven and in earth” (Eph. iii. 15); or, as one

single congregation. Hence their distinguishing tenet is grounded upon

the notion that the primitive bishops were not overseers of dioceses,

but pastors of single independent congregations.

That which unites them, or rather which distinguishes them from other

denominations of Christians, is their maintaining that the power of

Church government and discipline is lodged neither in the bishop, nor in

a presbytery or senate of Church rulers distinct from the people, but in

the community of the faithful at large; and their disclaiming, more or

less, every form of union between Churches, and assigning to each

congregation the exclusive government of itself, as a body corporate,

having full power within itself to admit and exclude members; to choose

Church officers; and, when the good of the society requires it, to

depose them, without being accountable to classes, presbyteries, synods,

convocations, councils, or any jurisdiction whatever.

In doctrine they are strictly Calvinistic. But many of the Independents,

both at home and abroad, reject the use of “all creeds and confessions

drawn up by fallible men;” and merely require of their teachers a

declaration of their belief in the truth of the gospel and its leading

doctrines, and of their adherence to the Scriptures as the sole standard

of faith and practice, and the only test of doctrine, or the only

criterion of faith. And in general they require from all persons who

wish to be admitted into their communion, an account, either verbal or

written, of what is called their _experience_; in which, not only a

declaration of their faith in the LORD JESUS, and their purpose, by

grace, to devote themselves to him, is expected, but likewise a recital

of the steps by which they were led to a knowledge and profession of the

gospel.

In regard to Church government and discipline, it may be sufficient to

remark here, after what has already been said, that Independents in

general agree with the Presbyterians, “in maintaining the identity of

presbyters and bishops, and believe that a plurality of presbyters,

pastors, or bishops, in one church, is taught in Scripture, rather than

the common usage of one bishop over many congregations;” but they

conceive their own mode of discipline to be “as much beyond the

presbyterian, as presbytery is preferable to prelacy:” and, that one

distinguishing feature of their discipline is, their maintaining “the

right of the Church, or body of Christians, to determine who shall be

admitted into their communion, and also to exclude from their fellowship

those who may prove themselves unworthy members.

This their regard to purity of communion, whereby they profess to

receive only accredited, or really serious Christians, has been termed

the grand Independent principle.

The earliest account of the number of Independent congregations refers

to 1812; before that period, Independent and Presbyterian congregations

were returned together. In 1812, there seem to have been 1024

Independent churches in England and Wales (799 in England, and 225 in

Wales). In 1838, an estimate gives 1840 churches in England and Wales.

The present Census makes the number 3244 (2604 in England, and 640 in

Wales); with accommodation (after making an allowance for 185 incomplete

returns) for 1,063,136 persons. The _attendance_ on the Census-Sunday

was as follows—after making an addition for 59 chapels for which the

numbers are not given—_Morning_, 524,612; _Afternoon_, 232,285;

_Evening_, 457,162.—_Registrar’s Report_, 1851.

INDEXES. (_Prohibitory and Expurgatory._) The books generally bearing

the title of Prohibitory and Expurgatory Indexes, are catalogues of

authors and works either condemned _in toto_, or censured and corrected

chiefly by expunction, issued from the Church of modern Rome, and

published by authority of her ruling members and societies so empowered.

The Prohibitory Index specifies and prohibits entire authors or works,

whether of known or of unknown authors. This book has been frequently

published, with successive enlargements, to the present time, under the

express sanction of the reigning pontiff. It may be considered as a kind

of periodical publication of the papacy.

The other class of indexes, the Expurgatory, contains a particular

examination of the works occurring in it, and specifies the passages

condemned to be expunged or altered. Such a work, in proportion to the

number of works embraced by it, must be, and in the case of the Spanish

indexes of the kind, is, voluminous. For a general history of these

indexes the reader is referred to Mendham’s “Literary Policy of the

Church of Rome.”

INDUCTION. This may be compared to livery and seisin of a freehold, for

it is putting a minister in actual possession of the Church to which he

is presented, and of the glebe land and other temporalities thereof; for

before induction he hath no freehold in them. The usual method of

induction is by virtue of a mandate under the seal of the bishop, to the

archdeacon of the place, who either himself, or by his warrant to all

clergymen within his archdeaconry, inducts the new incumbent by taking

his hand, laying it on the key of the church in the door, and

pronouncing these words, “I induct you into the real and actual

possession of the rectory or vicarage of H——, with all its profits and

appurtenances.” Then he opens the door of the church, and puts the

person in possession of it, who enters to offer his devotions, which

done he tolls a bell to summon his parishioners.

INDULGENCES. One of the evil practices of the Church of Rome, of whose

doctrine upon the subject the following outline may be given:—

The conferring of indulgences, which are denominated “the heavenly

treasures of the Church,” (_Conc. Tri. Decret. Sess. XX._,) is said to

be the “gift of CHRIST to the Church.” (_Sess. XXV._) To understand the

nature of indulgences we must observe, that “the temporal punishment due

to sin, by the decree of GOD, when its guilt and eternal punishment are

remitted, may consist either of evil in this life, or of temporal

suffering in the next, which temporal suffering in the next life is

called purgatory; that the Church has received power from GOD to remit

both of these inflictions, and this remission is called an

indulgence.”—_Butler’s Book of the Rom. Cath. Ch._ p. 110. “It is the

received doctrine of the Church, that an indulgence, when truly gained,

is not barely a relaxation of the canonical penance enjoined by the

Church, but also an actual remission by GOD himself, of the whole, or

part, of the temporal punishment due to it in his sight.”—_Milner’s End

of Controv._ p. 305. Pope Leo X., in his bull _De Indulgentiis_, whose

object he states to be “that no one in future may allege ignorance of

the doctrine of the Roman Church respecting indulgences, and their

efficacy,” declares, “that the Roman pontiff, vicar of CHRIST on earth,

can, for reasonable causes, by the powers of the keys, grant to the

faithful, whether in this life or in purgatory, indulgences, out of the

superabundance of the merits of CHRIST and of the saints (expressly

called a treasure); and that those who have truly obtained these

indulgences are released from so much of the temporal punishment due for

their actual sins to the Divine justice, as is equivalent to the

indulgence granted and obtained.”—_Bulla Leon. X. adv. Luther._ Clement

VI., in the bull _Unigenitus_, explains this matter more fully:—“As a

single drop of CHRIST’S blood would have sufficed for the redemption of

the whole human race,” so the rest was not lost, but “was a treasure

which he acquired for the militant Church, to be used for the benefit of

his sons; which treasure he would not suffer to be hid in a napkin, or

buried in the ground, but committed it to be dispensed by St. Peter, and

his successors, his own vicars upon earth, for proper and reasonable

causes, for the total or partial remission of the temporal punishment

due to sin; and for an augmentation of this treasure the merits of the

Blessed Mother of GOD, and of all the elect, are known to come in aid.”

“We have resolved,” says Pope Leo XII., in his bull of indiction for the

universal jubilee, in 1824, “in virtue of the authority given us by

heaven, fully to unlock that sacred treasure, composed of the merits,

sufferings, and virtues of CHRIST our LORD, and of his Virgin Mother,

and of all the saints, which the author of human salvation has intrusted

to our dispensation. During this year of the jubilee, we mercifully give

and grant, in the LORD, a plenary indulgence, remission, and pardon of

all their sins, to all the faithful of CHRIST, truly penitent, and

confessing their sins, and receiving the holy communion, who shall visit

the churches of blessed Peter and Paul,” &c. “We offer you,” says

Ganganelli, in his bull _De Indulgentiis_, “a share of all the riches of

Divine mercy, which have been intrusted to us, and chiefly those which

have their origin in the blood of CHRIST. We will then open to you all

the gates of the rich reservoir of atonement, derived from the merits of

the Mother of GOD, the holy apostles, the blood of the martyrs, and the

good works of all the saints. We invite you, then, to drink of this

overflowing stream of indulgence, to enrich yourselves in the

inexhaustible treasures of the Church, according to the custom of our

ancestors. Do not, then, let slip the present occasion, this favourable

time, these salutary days, employing them to appease the justice of God,

and obtain your pardon.”

The _reasonable causes_, on account of which indulgences are given, are,

where “the cause be pious, that is, not a work which is merely temporal,

or vain, or in no respect pertaining to the Divine glory, but for any

work whatsoever, which tends to the honour of GOD, or the service of the

Church, an indulgence will be valid. We see, occasionally, the very

greatest indulgences given for the very lightest causes; as when a

_plenary_ indulgence is granted to all who stand before the gates of St.

Peter, whilst the pope gives the solemn blessing to the people on Easter

day;” for “indulgences do not depend, for their efficacy, on

consideration of the work enjoined, but on the infinite treasure of the

merits of CHRIST and the saints, which is a consideration surpassing and

transcending everything that is granted by an indulgence.” In some cases

“the work enjoined must not only be pious and useful, but bear a certain

proportion with the indulgence; that is, the work enjoined must tend to

an end more pleasing in the sight of GOD, than the satisfaction

remitted,” “although it is not necessary that it be in itself very

meritorious, or satisfactory, or difficult, and laborious, (though these

things ought to be regarded too,) but that it be a mean apt and useful

towards obtaining the end for which the indulgence is granted.” “As the

large resort of people,” before the gates of St. Peter, when the pope

gives his solemn blessing, “is a mean, apt and useful, to set forth

faith, respecting the head of the Church, and to the honour of the

apostolic see, which is the end of the indulgence.”—_Bellarmine de

Indulgentiis_, lib. i. c. 12. The first General Lateran Council granted

“remission of sins to whoever shall go to Jerusalem, and effectually

help to oppose the infidels.”—_Can. XI._ The third and fourth Lateran

Councils granted the same indulgence to those who set themselves to

destroy heretics, or who shall take up arms against them.—See _Labbe_,

vol. x. p. 1523. Boniface VIII. granted, not only a full and large, but

the most full, pardon of all sins to all that visit Rome the first year

in every century. Clement V. decreed, that they who should, at the

jubilee, visit such and such churches, should obtain “a most full

remission of all their sins;” and he not only granted a “plenary

absolution of all sins, to all who died on the road to Rome,” but “also

commanded the angels of paradise to carry the soul direct to heaven.”

“Sincere repentance,” we are told, “is always enjoined, or implied, in

the grant of an indulgence, and is indispensably necessary for every

grace.”—_Milner’s End of Controversy_, p. 304. But as the dead are

removed from the possibility, so are they from the necessity, of

repentance; “as the pope,” says Bellarmine, “applies the satisfactions

of CHRIST and the saints to the dead, by means of works enjoined on the

living, they are applied, not in the way of judicial absolution, but in

the way of payment (_per modum solutionis_). For as when a person gives

alms, or fasts, or makes a pilgrimage, on account of the dead, the

effect is, not that he obtains absolution for them from their liability

to punishment, but he presents to GOD that particular satisfaction for

them, in order that GOD, on receiving it, may liberate the dead from the

debt of punishment which they had to pay. In like manner, the pope does

not absolve the deceased, but offers to GOD, out of the measure of

satisfaction, as much as is necessary to free them.”—_Id._ Their object

is “to afford succour to such as have departed real penitents in the

love of GOD, yet before they had duly satisfied, by fruits worthy of

penance, for sins of commission and omission, and are now purifying in

the fire of purgatory; that an entrance may be opened for them into that

country, where nothing defiled is admitted.”—_Bull. Leo. XII._

“As the power of granting indulgences was given by CHRIST to the Church,

and she has exercised it in the most ancient times, this holy synod

teaches, and commands, that the use of them, as being greatly salutary

to the Christian people, and approved by the authority of councils,

shall be retained; and she anathematizes those who say they are useless,

or deny to the Church the power of granting them; but in this grant, the

synod wishes that moderation, agreeably to the ancient and approved

practice of the Church, be exercised; lest, by too great facility,

ecclesiastical discipline be weakened.”—_Conc. Trid. Sess. XXV. de

Indulg._

“The chief pontiffs, by virtue of the supreme authority given them in

the Universal Church, have justly assumed the power of reserving some

graver criminal causes to their own peculiar judgment.”—_Conc. Trid.

Sess. XIV._ cap. 7. “The more weighty criminal charges against bishops,

which deserve deposition and deprivation, may be judged and determined

only by the supreme Roman pontiff.”—_Conc. Trid. Sess. XXIV._ cap. 5.

“No testimony,” says Clementius, “can be produced from any father, or

any ancient Church, that either this doctrine, or the practice of such

indulgences, was known, or used, for 1200 years.”—_Exam. Conc. Trid. de

Indulg._ c. 4. Many of these indulgences can only be obtained from the

supreme pontiff; for obtaining which an office is opened at Rome, and a

table of fees, payable to the chancery of Rome, published by authority.

The pardon of a heretic is fixed at £36 9_s._; whilst marrying one wife,

after murdering another, may be commuted by the payment of £8 2_s._

9_d._ A pardon for perjury is charged at 9_s._; simony, 10_s._ 6_d._;

robbery, 12_s._; seduction, 9_s._; incest, 7_s._ 6_d._; murder, 7_s._

6_d._ Now, is not this taxation a virtual encouragement to the

commission of the most shocking crimes, when absolution for them is

granted and proffered on such easy terms? This seems to be, in fact, the

establishing a complete traffic for sins, and must be accounted a great

source of corruption and depravity.

“These pardons,” says Silvester de Prierio, “are not known to us by the

authority of the Scriptures, but by the authority of the Church of Rome,

and the popes; which is greater than the authority of the

Scriptures.”—_Con. Luth. pag. Indul._ They were first sanctioned by

Urban II., as a reward for those who engaged in a crusade against the

Mahometans, for the recovery of Palestine. To these Urban promised the

remission of all their sins, and to open to them the gates of heaven.

From these extracts we may learn, that the members of the Church of Rome

did formerly, and do now, teach and believe on the subject of

indulgences; 1st, That these pardons are to be paid for; 2nd, That they

are granted through the merits of the Virgin and of the saints, as well

as through the death and sufferings of our blessed Saviour; 3rd, That

these pardons are more effectual at Rome than elsewhere, and that they

are better at the time of the pope’s jubilee than in other years.

Now in all this, such doctrines do openly and plainly contradict the

word of GOD. For in the first place, the prophet Isaiah, instead of

calling for money, says, “Ho every one that thirsteth, come ye to the

waters, and he that hath no money, come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy

wine and milk, without money and without price.” (lv. 1.) Instead of

speaking like Tetzel, St. Paul says, “Being justified freely by his

grace, through the redemption that is in CHRIST JESUS, whom GOD hath set

forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.” (Rom. iii. 24,

25.) And, unlike the pope, “The spirit and the bride say, Come. And let

him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And

whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” (Rev. xxii. 17.)

In the next place, the merits of saints are never said in Scripture to

be the cause of their own salvation, or of that of others; for all that

are saved are said to be saved through faith in CHRIST; which faith

produceth in them good works, as naturally as a tree produceth fruit.

St. Peter declares, that “there is none other name under heaven given

among men, whereby we must be saved, but only the name of our LORD JESUS

CHRIST.” (Acts iv. 12.)

And, in the last place, as to the idea, that it is better to worship GOD

in one city or country than in another, our LORD has plainly said, No,

in his conversation with the woman of Samaria. She said, “Our fathers

worshipped in this mountain, and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place

where men ought to worship. JESUS saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the

hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at

Jerusalem, worship the FATHER.... But the hour cometh, and now is, when

the true worshippers shall worship the FATHER in spirit and in truth,

for the FATHER seeketh such to worship him.” (John iv. 20–23.)

In saluting the Corinthian Church, St. Paul joins with them “all that in

every place call upon the name of JESUS CHRIST our LORD, both theirs and

ours.” (1 Cor. i. 2.) The Scripture does not tell us of any particular

times, in which prayer is more acceptable to GOD than at others; but

they exhort us to “seek the LORD while he may be found, and to call upon

him while he is near.” (Isa. i. 6.) “To-day, if you will hear his voice,

harden not your heart.” (Ps. xcv. 7, 8.) “Boast not thyself of

to-morrow, for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.” (Prov.

xxvii. 1.) “Now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation.” (2

Cor. vi. 2.) So that while GOD thus offers in the Bible, forgiveness

through CHRIST, to all who shall repent and believe the gospel; the

Church of Rome presumes to tell her people, that it will be better for

them, while they profess to repent and believe, to pay their money; and

safer for them to come to Rome on jubilee years, or to some other place

in a jubilee month, to receive the benefits of their absolution. Surely

the people who believe all this, rather than their Bible, are like the

Jews whom Jeremiah, in GOD’S name, thus describes:—“My people have

committed two evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living

waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no

water.” (Jer. ii. 13.) Or, rather, it is to be feared, that the whole

body, teachers and people, are like those of whom our LORD said, “They

be blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both

shall fall into the ditch.” (Matt. xv. 14.)—_O’Donoghue._

INDULTS, in the Church of Rome, is a power of presenting to benefices,

granted to certain persons by the pope. Of this kind is the Indult of

kings, and sovereign princes, in the Romish communion, and that of the

parliament of Paris. By the Concordat for the abolition of the Pragmatic

Sanction, made between Francis I. and Leo X. in 1516, the king has the

power of nominating to bishoprics, and other consistorial benefices in

his realm. At the same time, by a particular bull, the pope granted to

the king the privilege of nominating to the churches of Bretagne and

Provence. The bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, being yielded to the

French king by the treaty of Munster, in 1648, Pope Alexander VIII. in

1664, and Clement IX. in 1668, granted the king an Indult for these

three bishoprics; and in 1668 the same Pope Clement IX. granted the king

an Indult of the same purport, for the benefices in the counties of

Rousillon, Artois, and the Low Countries.

In the year 1424, Pope Martin V. granted to the parliament of Paris this

right of presentation to benefices, which they declined to accept.

Eugenius IV. granted them the like privilege, which did not take effect

by reason of a decree of the Council of Basil, which took away all

expectative graces. Lastly, at the interview between the emperor Charles

V. and King Francis I. at Nice, in 1538, Pope Paul III., who was present

as a mediator, gave an Indult to the parliament of Paris, reviving that

formerly granted by Eugenius IV.

The cardinals, likewise, have an Indult granted them by agreement

between Pope Paul IV. and the sacred college, in 1555, which is always

confirmed by the popes at the time of their election. By this treaty or

agreement the cardinals have the free disposal of all the benefices

depending on them, without being interrupted by any prior collations

from the Pope. By this Indult the cardinals are empowered, likewise, to

bestow a benefice _in commendam_.

INFALLIBILITY. In one sense the universal Church is infallible. It has

an infallible guide in the Holy Scriptures. Holy Scripture contains all

religious truth. And the Church having the Scriptures is so far

infallibly guided. But there is no infallible guide to the

interpretation of Scripture. If it were so, then there would be an

authority above the Scriptures. Hence the wisdom of our twentieth

Article: “The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and

authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the

Church to ordain anything that is contrary to GOD’S word written,

neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to

another. Wherefore although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy

writ, yet as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so

besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for

necessity of salvation.”

Here the authority of the Church in subordination to Scripture is

clearly laid down. To the same effect is our twenty-first Article.

“General councils may not be gathered together without the commandment

and will of princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as

they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the spirit

and word of GOD,) they may err, and sometime have erred, even in things

pertaining unto GOD. Wherefore things ordained by them, as necessary to

salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be

declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.”—_Beveridge._

But although we can have no infallible guide beyond the Scriptures, yet

there may be a proper _certainty_ in matters of faith, doctrine, and

discipline, without infallibility. This, in his “Importance of the

Doctrine of the Holy Trinity,” that great divine, Dr. Waterland, shows

from the words of Chillingworth. “Though we pretend not to certain means

of not erring in interpreting all Scripture, particularly such places as

are obscure and ambiguous, yet this, methinks, should be no impediment;

but that we may have certain means of not erring in and about the sense

of those places which are so plain and clear that they need no

interpreters; and in such we say our faith is contained. If you ask me,

how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these places? I ask

you again, can you be sure that you understand what I or any man else

says? GOD be thanked that we have sufficient means to be certain enough

of the truth of our faith; but the privilege of not being in possibility

of erring, that we challenge not, because we have as little reason as

you to do so, and you have none at all. If you ask, seeing we may

possibly err, how can we be assured we do not? I ask you again, seeing

your eyesight may deceive you, how can you be sure you see the sun when

you do see it? A pretty sophism! That whosoever possibly may err, cannot

be certain that he doth not err. A judge may possibly err in judgment;

can he, therefore, never have assurance that he hath judged right? A

traveller may possibly mistake his way; must I, therefore, be doubtful

whether I am in the right way from my hall to my chamber? Or can our

London carrier have no certainty, in the middle of the day, when he is

sober and in his wits, that he is in the way to London? These, you see,

are right worthy consequences, and yet they are as like to your own, as

an egg to an egg, or milk to milk.

“Methinks, so subtile a man as you are should easily apprehend a wide

difference between authority to do a thing and infallibility in doing

it. The former, the doctor, together with the Article of the Church of

England, attributeth to the Church, nay, to particular Churches, and I

subscribe to his opinion; that is, an authority of determining

controversies of faith, according to plain and evident Scripture and

universal tradition and infallibility, while they proceed according to

this rule. As if there should arise an heretic that should call in

question CHRIST’S passion and resurrection, the Church has authority to

determine this controversy, and infallible direction how to do it, and

to excommunicate this man if he should persist in his errors.

“The ground of your error here is, your not distinguishing between

actual certainty and absolute infallibility. Geometricians are not

infallible in their own science; yet they are very certain of what they

see demonstrated: and carpenters are not infallible, yet certain of the

straightness of those things which agree with their rule and square. So

though the Church be not infallibly certain that in all her definitions,

whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters, she shall

proceed according to her rule; yet being certain of the infallibility of

her rule, and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed

according to it, she may be certain of the truth of some particular

decrees, and yet not certain that she shall never decree but what is

true.

“Though the Church being not infallible, I cannot believe her in

everything she says; yet I can and must believe her in everything she

proves, either by Scripture, reason, or universal tradition, be it

fundamental or not fundamental. Though she may err in some things, yet

she does not err in what she proves, though it be not fundamental.

Protestants believing Scripture to be the word of GOD, may be certain

enough of the truth and certainty of it. For what if they say the

Catholic Church, much more themselves, may possibly err in some

fundamental points, is it therefore consequent they can be certain of

none such? What if a wiser man than I may mistake the sense of some

obscure place of Aristotle, may I not, therefore, without any arrogance

or inconsequence, conceive myself certain that I understand him in some

plain places which carry their sense before them? We pretend not at all

to any assurance that we cannot err, but only to a sufficient certainty

that we do not err, but rightly understand those things that are plain,

whether fundamental or not fundamental. That GOD is, and is a rewarder

of them that seek him; that, &c. These we conceive both true, because

the Scripture says so, and truths fundamental, because they are

necessary parts of the gospel, whereof our SAVIOUR says, _Qui non

crediderit, damnabitur_.

“I do heartily acknowledge and believe the articles of our faith to be

in themselves truths as certain and infallible as the very common

principles of geometry or metaphysics; but that there is required of us

a knowledge of them and an adherence to them, as certain as that of

sense or science; that such a certainty is required of us under pain of

damnation, so that no man can hope to be in a state of salvation but he

that finds in himself such a degree of faith, such a strength of

adherence; this I have already demonstrated to be a great error, and of

dangerous and pernicious consequence.

“Though I deny that it is required of us to be certain in the highest

degree, infallibly certain, of the truth of the things which we believe,

(for this were to know and not believe, neither is it possible unless

our evidence of it, be it natural or supernatural, were of the highest

degree,) yet I deny not but we ought to be, and may be, infallibly

certain that we are to believe the religion of CHRIST. For, 1. This is

most certain, that we are in all things to do according to wisdom and

reason, rather than against it. 2. This is as certain, that wisdom and

reason require that we should believe those things which are by many

degrees more credible and probable than the contrary. 3. This is as

certain, that to every man who considers impartially what great things

may be said for the truth of Christianity, and what poor things they are

which may be said against it, either for any other religion, or for none

at all, it cannot but appear by many degrees more credible, that the

Christian religion is true, than the contrary. And from all these

premises, this conclusion evidently follows, that it is infallibly

certain, that we are firmly to believe the truth of the Christian

religion. There is an abundance of arguments exceedingly credible,

inducing men to believe the truth of Christianity; I say, so credible,

that though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe, yet they

evidently convince, that in true wisdom and prudence, the articles of it

deserve credit, and ought to be accepted as things revealed by

GOD.”—_Waterland._ _Chillingworth._

The Roman Church has no authorized doctrine of infallibility, though its

existence is practically assumed, and is bound up with the whole

catalogue of usurpations. The Council of Trent defined many minute and

unimportant matters, yet on that which involved so much, it published no

definition at all; neither pronouncing where the gift is lodged, nor

under what conditions it is exercised, nor to what subjects it extends;

nay, not even asserting that it exists at all. Suarez says that the

pope’s infallibility is a question of faith; Bellarmine, that it is not;

and Stapleton, that, though the denial of it is scandalous and

offensive, it is perhaps not heretical; while Gerson, with a very large

and learned school of Roman theologians, rejects the doctrine

altogether. And none of these opinions have been censured.

Again, if we ask whether, in point of fact, any pope has ever been a

heretic, we shall get nothing but inconsistent and contradictory

replies. Coster says, that not one has ever taught heresy, or fallen

into error; and he makes this an argument for the doctrine itself.

Pighius goes further, and says, that the pope is so confirmed in the

faith, that he could not fall into error either publicly or privately,

even if he would; while, on the other hand, there is a multitude of

Roman writers, who fully admit the heresies of Liberius, Vigilius,

Honorius, and the rest; either condemning them absolutely, or

extenuating their acts on some special ground. The Council of Pisa, A.

D. 1409, in its sentence of deposition against the rivals, pronounces

them both heretics. And so previous councils have condemned former

popes; yet the question is still in debate.

As a matter of doctrine, then, we have a long line of the greatest

theologians that the Roman Church has ever produced, denying in explicit

terms that any gift of infallibility at all was conveyed to the bishops

of Rome by the words of CHRIST. And on the question of fact we find the

very chief defenders of the pope’s prerogatives, admitting that he may

deceive men by his example, and lead them into error; and that he may

publish decrees, and insert them in the body of canon law, which yet

contradict the tradition of the Church and the truth of the gospel. The

claim of infallibility, which advances no Scripture proof, except one

perverted text; and which is maintained in the face of all these

hesitations and contradictions, these disproofs on the one side, and

injurious admissions on the other; can be nothing else but a delusion

and a fraud.—_S. Robins._

INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. (See _Church of Rome_, _Popery_.)

On this subject we give the following remarks of Bishop Beveridge:—That

the Catholic or universal Church is infallible, so as constantly and

firmly to maintain and hold every particular truth delivered in the

gospel, in one place or other of it, I think cannot well be denied; but

that any particular Church, or the Church of Rome in particular, is

infallible, we have expressly denied and opposed in the Thirty-nine

Articles, it being there expressly asserted, that “the Church of Rome

hath erred,” and that “not only in their living and manner of

ceremonies, but even in matters of faith.”

Now to prove that the Church of Rome hath erred, even in matters of

faith, I think the best way is to compare the doctrine maintained by

them with the doctrine delivered in these Articles. For whatsoever is

contained in these Articles, we have, or shall, by the assistance of

GOD, prove to be consonant to Scripture, reason, and Fathers; and, by

consequence, to be a real truth. And, therefore, whatsoever is any way

contrary to what is here delivered, must needs be an error. And so that

besides other errors which the Church of Rome holds, be sure,

whereinsoever it differs from the doctrine of the Church of England,

therein it errs. Now to prove that the Church of Rome doth hold such

doctrines as are contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, I

shall not insist upon any particular, though never so eminent, persons

amongst them that have delivered many doctrines contrary to ours. For I

know, as it is amongst ourselves, that is not an error of our Church

which is the error of some one or many particular persons in it; so also

amongst them, everything that Bellarmine, Johannes de Turrecremata,

Gregorius de Valentia, Alphonsus de Castro, or any of the grandees of

their Church, saith, cannot be accounted as an error of their Church if

it be false; nor if it be true, as the truth of the whole Church. A

Church may be Catholic though it hath many heretics in it; and a Church

may be heretical though it hath many Catholics in it. And therefore I

say, to prove the doctrine of their Church to be erroneous, I shall not

take any notice of the errors of particular persons, but of the errors

deliberately and unanimously concluded upon, and subscribed to, and

published as the doctrine of that Church, by the whole Church itself met

together in council. For the doctrine delivered by a council cannot be

denied to be the doctrine of the whole Church there represented. As the

doctrine delivered in these Articles, because it was concluded upon in a

council of English divines, is accounted the doctrine of the Church of

England; so the doctrine concluded upon in a council of Romish divines,

cannot be denied to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome. And of all

the councils they have held, that which I shall pitch upon in this case,

is the Council of Trent, both because it was the most general council

they ever held, and also because it was held about the same time at

Trent that our convocation that composed these Articles was held at

London. For it was in the year of our LORD 1562, that our convocation,

that concluded upon these Articles, was holden at London; and though the

Council of Trent was begun in the year of our LORD 1545, yet it was not

concluded nor confirmed till the fifth year of Pope Pius IV., A. D.

1563, as appears from Pope Pius III.’s bull for the confirmation of it.

So that our convocation was held within the same time that that council

was; and so our Church concluded upon truths here, whilst theirs agreed

upon errors there. Neither need we go any further to prove that they

agreed upon errors, than by showing that many things that they did then

subscribe to, were contrary to what our Church, about the same time,

concluded upon. For all our Articles are, as we may see, agreeable to

Scripture, reason, and Fathers; and they delivering many things quite

contrary to the said Articles, so many of them must needs be contrary to

Scripture, reason, and Fathers too, and therefore cannot but be errors.

And so in showing that the doctrine of the Church of Rome is, in many

things, contrary to the Church of England, I shall prove from Scripture,

reason, and Fathers, the truth of this proposition, that the Church of

Rome hath erred even in matters of faith.

Now, though there be many things wherein the Church of Rome did at that,

and so still doth at this, time disagree with ours; yet I shall pick out

but some of those propositions that do, in plain terms, contradict these

Articles.

As, first, we say, (Art. VI.,) “Scripture is sufficient, &c., and the

other books, (viz. commonly called the Apocrypha,) the Church doth not

apply them to establish any doctrine.” But the Church of Rome thrusts

them into the body of canonical Scriptures, and accounts them as

canonical as any of the rest; saying, “But this synod thought good to

write down to this decree an index of the holy books, lest any one

should doubt which they are that are received by this council. Now they

are the under-written. Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses,

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy: Joshua, Judges, Ruth,

four books of the Kings, two of the Chronicles, Esdras the first and

second, which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Hester, Job, Psalter

of one hundred and fifty Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, the

Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Baruch,

Ezekiel, Daniel, twelve Lesser Prophets, that is, Osee, &c., two books

of the Maccabees, the first and second. Of the New Testament, the four

Gospels, &c. as ours. But if any one doth not receive all these books,

with every part of them, as they use to be read in the Catholic (viz.

the Roman) Church, and as they are contained in the ancient vulgar Latin

edition, for holy and canonical, and shall knowingly contemn the

aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”

Secondly, we say that “original sin is the fault and corruption of every

man, none excepted.” (Art. IX.) But they say, “but this synod declares

it is not their intention to comprehend the blessed and unspotted Virgin

Mary, the mother of GOD, in this decree, where it treats of original

sin.”

Thirdly, we say, “We are accounted righteous before GOD only for the

merit of our LORD JESUS CHRIST by faith, and so justified by faith

only.” (Art. XI.) But they say, “If any one say that a sinner is

justified by faith only, that he so understand that nothing else is

required to attain the grace of justification, and that it is no ways

necessary that he should be prepared and disposed by the motion of his

own will, let him be anathema.”

Fourthly, we say, “Works before justification have the nature of sin.”

(Art. XIII.) But they, “If any one say, that all the works which are

done before justification, howsoever they are done, are truly sins, or

deserve the hatred of GOD; or by how much the more vehemently a man

strives to dispose himself for grace, by so much the more grievously

doth he sin, let him be anathema.”

Fifthly, we say, “CHRIST was alone without sin.” (Art. XV.) They say,

that the Virgin Mary also was. “If any one say, that a man being once

justified can sin no more, nor lose his grace, and therefore he who

falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that he

can avoid through his whole life all even venial sins, unless by a

special privilege from GOD, as the Church holdeth concerning the blessed

Virgin, let him be anathema.”

Sixthly, we say, “The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons,

worshipping, and adoration, as well of images as relics, and also

invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded

upon no warrant of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of GOD.”

(Art. XXII.) But they, “Seeing the Catholic Church taught by the HOLY

GHOST out of the Holy Scriptures, and the ancient tradition of the

Fathers, in holy councils, and last of all in this general synod, hath

taught that there is a purgatory, and that souls there detained are

helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the

sacrifices of the acceptable altar; this holy synod commands the

bishops, that they would diligently study, that the sound doctrine

concerning purgatory delivered from the holy Fathers and sacred councils

be, by CHRIST’S faithful people, believed, held, taught, and preached

everywhere.” And again, “This holy synod commands all bishops and

others, that have the charge and care of teaching, that according to the

use of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive

times of the Christian religion, and the consent of the holy Fathers,

and the decrees of sacred councils, especially concerning the

intercession and invocation of saints, the honour of relics, and the

lawful use of images, they diligently instruct the faithful, teaching

that the saints, reigning together with CHRIST, do offer up their

prayers to GOD for men, and that it is good and profitable simply to

invocate or pray unto them,” &c. And that, “the bodies of the holy

martyrs, and others, that live with CHRIST, are to be worshipped,” &c.

And also, “that images of CHRIST, the GOD-bearing Virgin, and other

saints, are to be had and retained, especially in churches, and that due

honour and veneration be given to them.” And presently, “But if any one

teach or think anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.”

Seventhly, we say, “It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of GOD,

and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the

church, or to administer the sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of

the people.” (Art. XXIV.) But they, “If any one say, that the custom of

the Church of Rome, whereby part of the canon and the words of

consecration are uttered with a loud voice, is to be condemned, or that

mass ought to be celebrated only in the vulgar tongue, or that water

ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the cup,

for that it is contrary to CHRIST’S institution, let him be anathema.”

Eighthly, we say, “There are but two sacraments.” (Art. XXV.) They, “If

any one say, that the sacraments of the new law were not all instituted

by JESUS CHRIST our LORD, or that there are more or less than seven, to

wit, baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance, extreme unction,

orders, and matrimony, or that any of these seven is not truly and

properly a sacrament, let him be anathema.”

Ninthly, we say, “Transubstantiation is repugnant to the Scripture, and

overthroweth the nature of a sacrament.” (Art. XXVIII.) But they, “But

because CHRIST our Redeemer said, that that which he offered under the

shape of bread was truly his body, therefore it was always believed in

the Church of GOD; and, last of all, this holy synod doth now declare

it, that, by the consecration of bread and wine is made the changing of

the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of

CHRIST our LORD, and of the whole substance of wine into the substance

of his blood; which change is fitly and properly called, by the holy

Catholic Church, transubstantiation.”

Tenthly, we say, “The sacrament of our LORD’S supper is not to be

worshipped.” (Art. XXVIII.) But they, “There is therefore no place of

doubting left, but that all the faithful of CHRIST, according to the

custom always received in the Catholic Church, should give to this most

holy sacrament, in the adoration of it, that worship of service which is

due to the true GOD.”

Eleventhly, we say, “The cup of the LORD is not to be denied to the

lay-people.” (Art. XXX.) But they, “If any one say, that, from the

command of GOD and the necessity of salvation, all and every believer in

CHRIST ought to receive both kinds of the most holy sacrament of the

eucharist, let him be anathema.”

Twelfthly, we say, “The sacrifices of the mass are blasphemous fables

and dangerous deceits.” (Art. XXXI.) But they, “If any one say that in

the mass there is not a true and proper sacrifice offered to GOD, or

that to be offered is nothing else but for CHRIST to be given to us to

eat, let him be anathema.”

There are many other things wherein the doctrine established by the

Church of Rome contradicteth ours; but these may be enough to show both

the falseness of the calumny that ignorant people put upon our Church of

England, as if it was returning to Popery, whereas the doctrine

established by our Church doth, in so many and plain terms, contradict

the established doctrine of theirs; and also it shows the truth of this

part of our doctrine, that some part of theirs is false. For seeing

whatsoever is here set down as the doctrine of our Church, is grounded

upon Scripture, consented to by reason, and delivered by the Fathers, it

cannot but be true doctrine; and seeing theirs do so frequently

contradict ours, it cannot but in such things that are so contradictory

to ours be false doctrine. And therefore we may well conclude, that even

the Church of Rome too hath erred, yea, in matters of faith, and that if

she denies it, she must add that to the rest of her errors.—_Beveridge._

Concerning the pretended infallibility of the Church of Rome, the

celebrated Bishop Bull observes, “We Protestants profess and prove, by

most evident arguments, that the Church of Rome hath in sundry points

erred, and is guilty of innovation. The patrons of that Church, not able

to answer those arguments of ours, tell us this cannot be; that the

Church of Rome is infallible, and cannot possibly be guilty of such

innovation. Is not this an admirable way of reasoning and disputation?

Can the Romanists produce arguments to prove that their Church cannot

err, so clear and evident as these alleged by us to demonstrate that she

hath erred? Surely no. To make this plain, if I can be infallibly

certain that my senses, rightly disposed, and all due requisites to

sensation supposed, are infallible, and cannot be deceived about their

proper objects (and if I cannot be assured of this, the apostles had no

infallible assurance of that which is the foundation of the Christian

faith, the resurrection of CHRIST, which was evidenced to them by their

testimony of sense, and that testimony pronounced infallible, Acts i. 3;

1 John i. 1, 2); then I may be infallibly certain that the Church of

Rome is not infallible, yea, that she hath grossly erred in her doctrine

of transubstantiation, teaching the bread and wine, after the words of

consecration, to be turned into the very flesh and blood of CHRIST,

which yet all my senses assure me to remain still the same in nature and

substance, that is, bread and wine. If I can be infallibly certain that

CHRIST himself is infallible, that he would not, could not, appoint an

institution that should be dangerous and scandalous to his Church, viz.

of receiving the holy eucharist in both kinds; if I can be infallibly

certain that the whole Church of CHRIST, that was under the guidance and

direction of the apostles, were not grossly deceived, and engaged by the

apostles themselves in a practice dangerous and scandalous (and of this

I may be as infallibly sure as I am of the truth of the gospel itself);

then I may be infallibly certain that the Church of Rome not only may

err, but hath grossly erred in that determination of hers, whereby she

rejects (in the Council of Constance) communion in both kinds, as a

dangerous and scandalous practice. And in the same manner we might

proceed to show the falsehood of divers other determinations of the

Church of Rome, if this paper would permit; but these are sufficient to

any person that shall consult his serious reason. Indeed, I look upon it

as a wonderful both just and wise providence of GOD, that he hath

suffered the Church of Rome to fall into such gross errors, (which

otherwise it is scarce imaginable how men in their wits, that had not

renounced not only the Scriptures, but their reason, yea, and their

senses too, could be overtaken with,) and to determine them for articles

of faith. For hereby a person of the meanest capacity (so he be sincere,

and not under the prejudice of education) may evidently discern with

what a strange kind of impudence that Church arrogates to herself an

infallibility in all her determinations. And for such of our Church that

have been informed of these things, and yet shall leave our communion,

and follow the guidance of that Church upon the account of her

infallibility, I fear they are in the number of those miserable persons

described by the apostle, (2 Thess. ii. 11, 12,) who are given up to

strong delusion, that they may believe a lie, &c. That which follows in

the text I dread to mention; GOD avert it from them!”

INFANT BAPTISM. (See _Baptism, Infant_.)

INFIRMARIAN. An officer in a monastery, who had the care of the sick and

infirm. A dignitary in Nice cathedral was so called.—_Jebb._

INFINITY. An attribute of GOD. The idea of _infinity_ or _immensity_ is

so closely connected with that of _self-existence_, that, because it is

impossible but something must be infinite, independently and of itself,

therefore it must of necessity be self-existent: and because something

must of necessity be self-existent, therefore it is necessary that it

must likewise be infinite. A necessarily existent being must be

_everywhere_ as well as _always_ unalterably the same. For a necessity,

which is not everywhere the same, is plainly a consequential necessity

only, depending upon some external cause. Whatever therefore exists by

an absolute necessity in its own nature, must needs be _infinite_, as

well as _eternal_. To suppose a finite being to be self-existent, is to

say, that it is a contradiction for that being not to exist, the absence

of which may yet be conceived without a contradiction; which is the

greatest absurdity in the world.

From hence it follows, that the infinity of the self-existent Being must

be an infinity of _fulness_, as well as of _immensity_; that is, it must

not only be without limits, but also without diversity, defect, or

interruption. It follows, likewise, that the self-existent Being must be

a most simple, unchangeable, incorruptible Being, without parts, figure,

motion, divisibility, or any other such properties, as we find in

matter. For all these things do plainly and necessarily imply finiteness

in their very notion, and are utterly inconsistent with complete

infinity.

As to the particular manner in which the Supreme Being is infinite, or

everywhere present—this is as impossible for our finite understandings

to comprehend and explain, as it is for us to form an adequate idea of

infinity. The schoolmen have presumed to assert, that the _immensity_ of

GOD is a _point_, as his _eternity_ (they think) is an _instant_. But

this being altogether unintelligible, we may more safely affirm, that

the Supreme Cause is at all times equally present, both in his simple

essence, and by the immediate and perfect exercise of all his

attributes, to every point of the boundless immensity, as if it were

really all but one single point.—_Clarke._

INITIATED. In the early ages of the Church, this term was applied to

those who had been baptized, and admitted to a knowledge of the higher

mysteries of the gospel. The discipline of the Church at that period,

made it necessary that candidates for baptism should pass through a long

probation, in the character of catechumens. While in this preparatory

state, they were not allowed to be present at the celebration of the

eucharist; and in sermons and homilies in their presence, the speaker

either waived altogether any direct statement of the sublimer doctrines

of Christianity, or alluded to them in an obscure manner, not

intelligible to the _uninitiated_, but sufficiently clear to be

interpreted by those for whom they were intended, viz. the baptized or

_initiated_. Hence the phrase so common in the homilies of the Fathers,

“the _initiated_ understand what is said.”

INNOCENTS’ DAY. One of the holy-days of the Church. Its design is to

commemorate one of the most thrilling events in the gospel history. The

innocents were they who suffered death under the cruel decree of Herod,

who thought, by a general slaughter of young children, to have

accomplished the death of the infant JESUS. They are so called from the

Latin term _innocentes_ or _innocui_, harmless babes, altogether

incapable of defending themselves from the malice of their inhuman

persecutors. The celebration of the martyrdom of these innocents was

very ancient. It occurs on the 28th of December.

INQUISITION. A tribunal, or court of justice, in Roman Catholic

countries, erected by the popes for the examination and punishment of

_heretics_.

Before the conversion of the empire to Christianity, there was no other

tribunal, for the inquiry into matters of faith and doctrine, but that

of the bishops; nor any other way of punishing obstinate heretics, but

that of excommunication. But the Roman emperors, being converted to

Christianity, thought themselves obliged to interpose in the punishment

of crimes committed against GOD, and for this purpose made laws, (which

may be found in the Theodosian and Justinian codes,) by which heretics

were sentenced to banishment and forfeiture of estates. Thus there were

two courts of judicature against heretics, the one spiritual, the other

civil. The ecclesiastical court pronounced upon the right, declared what

was heresy, and excommunicated heretics. When this was done, the civil

courts undertook the prosecution, and punished those, in their persons

and fortunes, who were convicted of heresy.

This method lasted till after the year 800. From this time the

jurisdiction of the Western bishops over heretics was enlarged, and they

had now authority both to convict and punish them, by imprisonment, and

several acts of discipline, warranted by the canons and custom: but they

could not execute the imperial laws of banishment upon them. Matters

stood thus until the 12th century, when the great growth and power of

heresies (as they were called) began to give no small disturbance to the

Church. However, the popes could do no more than send legates and

preachers to endeavour the conversion of heretics, particularly the

_Albigenses_, who about this time were the occasion of great

disturbances in Languedoc. Hither Father Dominic and his followers

(called from him _Dominicans_) were sent by Pope Innocent III., with

orders to excite the Catholic princes and people to extirpate heretics,

to _inquire_ out their number and quality, and to transmit a faithful

account thereof to Rome. Hence they were called _Inquisitors_; and this

gave birth to the formidable tribunal of the _Inquisition_, which was

received in all Italy, and the dominions of Spain, excepting the kingdom

of Naples, and the Low Countries, where Charles V., and after him Philip

II. of Spain, endeavouring to establish it, in 1567, by the Duke of

Alva, thereby incurred the loss of the United Provinces.

This tribunal takes cognizance of heresy, Judaism, Mahometanism, and

polygamy; and the people stand in so much fear of it, that parents

deliver up their children, husbands their wives, and masters their

servants, to its officers, without daring in the least to murmur. The

prisoners are shut up in frightful dungeons, where they are kept for

several months, till they themselves turn their own accusers, and

declare the cause of their imprisonment; for they are never confronted

with witnesses. Their friends go into mourning, and speak of them as

dead, not daring to solicit their pardon, lest they should be brought in

as accomplices. When there is no shadow of proof against the pretended

criminal, he is discharged, after a tedious imprisonment, and the loss

of the greatest part of his effects.

The sentence against the prisoners of the Inquisition is publicly

pronounced, and with extraordinary solemnity. This is called _Auto da

fé_, that is, _Act_ or _Decree of Faith_. In Portugal, they erect a

theatre, capable of holding 3000 persons, on which they place a very

rich altar, and raise seats on each side in the form of an amphitheatre,

where the criminals are placed; over against whom is a high chair,

whither they are called one by one, to hear their doom, pronounced by

one of the Inquisitors. The prisoners know their doom by the clothes

they wear that day. Those who wear their own clothes, are discharged

upon payment of a fine. Those who have a _Santo Benito_, or straight

yellow coat without sleeves, charged with St. Andrew’s cross, have their

lives, but forfeit their effects. Those who have the resemblance of

flames, made of red serge, sewed upon their _Santo Benito_, without any

cross, are pardoned, but threatened to be burnt, if ever they relapse.

But those who, besides these flames, have on their _Santo Benito_ their

own picture, environed with figures of devils, are condemned to die. The

Inquisitors, who are ecclesiastics, do not pronounce the sentence of

death, but form and read an act, wherein they say, that the criminal,

being convicted of such a crime by his own proper confession, is

delivered with much reluctancy to the secular power, to be punished

according to his demerits. This writing they give to seven judges, who

attend at the right side of the altar. These condemn the criminal to be

first hanged, and then burnt: but _Jews_ are burnt alive. The public

place for execution in Portugal is called _Roussi_, whither the

Confraternity of Mercy attend, and pray for the prisoner.

The _Inquisition of Goa_, in the Indies, is very powerful, the principal

inquisitor having more respect showed him than either the archbishop or

viceroy. The criminals, sentenced by this tribunal to die, are clad much

after the same manner as in Portugal. Such as are convicted of magic,

wear paper caps in the form of sugar-loaves, covered with flames and

frightful figures of devils. All the criminals go in procession to a

church chosen for the ceremony, and have each of them a godfather, who

is answerable for their forthcoming after the ceremony is over. In this

procession the criminals walk barefooted, carrying lighted tapers in

their hands: the least guilty march foremost. After the last of them

that are to be discharged, comes one carrying a crucifix, and followed

by those who are to die. The next day after the execution, the pictures

of the executed are carried to the church of the Dominicans. The head

only is represented surrounded with firebrands, and underneath is

written the name, quality, and crime of the person executed.

The _Inquisition of Venice_, consisting of the pope’s nuncio residing

there, the patriarch of Venice, the father inquisitor, and two senators,

is nothing near so severe as those of Spain and Portugal. It does not

hinder the Greeks and Armenians from the exercise of their religion; and

it tolerates the Jews, who wear scarlet caps for the sake of

distinction. In fine, the power of this tribunal is so limited by the

states, that, in the university of Padua, degrees are taken without

requiring the candidates to make the profession of faith enjoined by the

popes; insomuch that schismatics, Jews, and those they call heretics,

daily take their degrees in law and physic there.

The _Inquisition_ of _Rome_ is a congregation of twelve cardinals, and

some other officers, and the pope presides in it in person. This is

accounted the highest tribunal in Rome. It began in the time of Pope

Paul IV., on occasion of the spreading of Lutheranism. The standard of

the Inquisition is of red damask, on which is painted a cross, with an

olive branch on one side, and a sword on the other: the motto in these

words of the 73rd psalm, _Exurge, Domine, et judica causam meam_.

INSPIRATION. (See _Holy Ghost_.) The extraordinary and supernatural

influence of the Spirit of God on the human mind, by which the prophets

and sacred writers were qualified to receive and set forth Divine

communications, without any mixture of error. In this sense the term

occurs in 2 Tim. iii. 16. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of

GOD,” &c. (See _Scriptures, Inspiration of_.)

The word _inspiration_ also expresses that ordinary operation of the

SPIRIT, by which men are inwardly moved and excited both to will and to

do such things as are pleasing to GOD, and through which all the powers

of their minds are elevated, purified, and invigorated. “There is a

spirit in man; and the _inspiration_ of the ALMIGHTY giveth them

understanding.” (Job xxxii. 8.) In this latter sense the term and its

kindred verb frequently appear in the offices of the Church; as in the

petitions, “Grant, that by thy holy _inspiration_ we may think those

things that are good;” “Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the

_inspiration_ of thy Holy Spirit;” “Beseeching thee to _inspire_

continually the universal Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and

concord;” and

“Come, Holy Ghost, our souls _inspire_,

And lighten with celestial fire;”

“Visit our minds, into our hearts

Thy heavenly grace _inspire_.”

INSTALLATION. The act of giving visible possession of his office to a

canon or prebendary of a cathedral, by placing him in his stall. It is

also applied to the placing of a bishop in his episcopal throne in his

cathedral church; enthronization being said to be proper to archbishops

only; but this appears a technical and unreal distinction invented in

the middle ages.

The installation of the Knights of the Garter is a religious ceremony,

performed in the Chapel of St. George, at Windsor. (See _Ashmole’s

Institution of the Order of the Garter_.) Those of the Knights of the

Bath in Henry VII.’s Chapel in Westminster Abbey, and of the Knights of

St. Patrick in the Cathedral of St. Patrick’s in Dublin, are, according

to the statutes of the orders, conducted upon the same model.

INSTITUTION. The act by which the bishop commits to a clergyman the cure

of a church.

Canon 40. “To avoid the detestable sin of simony, every archbishop,

bishop, or other person having authority to admit, institute, or

collate, to any spiritual or ecclesiastical function, dignity, or

benefice, shall, before every such admission, institution, or collation,

minister to every person to be admitted, instituted, or collated, the

oath against simony.”

The following papers are to be sent to the bishop by the clergyman, who

is to be instituted or collated:—

1. Presentation to the benefice or cathedral preferment, duly stamped

and executed by the patron [_or_ petition, not on stamp, _if the person

to be instituted happens to be patron of the benefice_].

The stamp duty upon presentations is now regulated by the acts 5 & 6

Vict. c. 79, and 6 & 7 Vict. c. 72, and it is an _ad valorem_ duty upon

the net yearly value of the preferment or benefice, such value to be

ascertained by the certificate of the ecclesiastical commissioners for

England indorsed upon the instrument of presentation.

The following is the scale of stamp duty to which presentations are

liable:—

Where the annual value is under £300 £5 stamp.

If it amounts to £300 and is less than £400 10

If it amounts to £400 and is less than £500 15

If it amounts to £500 and is less than £600 20

and so on; an additional £5 being required for every £100 annual value.

In the case of collations, and also of institutions proceeding upon the

petition of the patron, the certificate of yearly value must be written

upon, and the stamp affixed to, the instrument of collation, or of

institution, respectively.

The following is the scale of duty to which collations and institutions

proceeding upon petition are liable:—

Where the annual value is under £300 £7 stamp.

If it amounts to £300 and is less than £400 12

If it amounts to £400 and is less than £500 17

If it amounts to £500 and is less than £600 22

and so on; an additional £5 being required for every £100 annual value.

In order to procure the certificate of value from the ecclesiastical

commissioners, application should be made by the secretary to the

commissioners, in the following form:—

_Application for Certificate of the Value of a Living under 5 & 6

Vict. c. 79, and 6 & 7 Vict. c. 72._

TO THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS FOR ENGLAND.

The ——, of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, and in the

patronage of ——, having become vacant on the —— day of —— last, by the

—— of the Rev. ——; and the Rev. —— being about to be —— thereto, the

ecclesiastical commissioners for England are requested to certify the

net yearly value thereof, according to the provisions of the acts 5 & 6

Vict. c. 79, and 6 and 7 Vict. c. 72.

(_Date_) ——.

(_Signature_) ——.

In answer to this application, a form of certificate will be sent from

the office of the ecclesiastical commissioners, which is to be indorsed

on the instrument of presentation, &c., and then transmitted to the same

office for signature; after which, the presentation, &c. will, on its

being taken to the Stamp Office, be properly stamped.

2. Letters of orders, deacon, and priest.

3. Letters testimonial by three beneficed clergymen, in the following

form:—

To the Right Reverend ——, Lord Bishop of ——.

We, whose names are hereunder written, testify and make known, that A.

B., clerk, A. M., (_or other degree_,) presented (_or_ to be collated,

_as the case may be_) to the canonry, &c., &c., (_or_ to the rectory or

vicarage, _as the case may be_,) of ——, in the county of ——, in your

lordship’s diocese, hath been personally known to us for the space of

three years last past; that we have had opportunities of observing his

conduct; that, during the whole of that time, we verily believe that he

lived piously, soberly, and honestly; nor have we at any time heard

anything to the contrary thereof; nor hath he at any time, as far as we

know or believe, held, written, or taught anything contrary to the

doctrine or discipline of the United Church of England and Ireland; and,

moreover, we believe him in our consciences to be, as to his moral

conduct, a person worthy to be admitted to the said canonry, or benefice

(_as the case may be_).

In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands, this —— day of ——, in

the year of our Lord 18—

C. D. rector of ——.

E. F. vicar of ——.

G. H. rector of ——.

If all the subscribers are not beneficed in the diocese of the bishop to

whom the testimonial is addressed, the counter-signature of the bishop

of the diocese wherein their benefices are respectively situate is

required.

4. A short statement of the title of the patron in case of a change of

patron since the last incumbent was presented.

The same subscriptions and declarations are to be made, and oaths taken,

as by a clergyman on being licensed to a perpetual curacy. (See

_Curacy_.)

If the clergyman presented, or to be collated, should be in possession

of other preferment, it will be necessary for him, (if he wishes to

continue to hold a cathedral preferment, or a benefice with the

cathedral preferment, or benefice to which he has been presented, or is

to be collated,) to look to the provisions of the act 1 & 2 Vict. c.

106, sect. 1 to sect. 14, before he is instituted, or collated.

INTENTION. _Priest’s Intention._ On this subject the following is the

eleventh canon of the Council of Trent:—“If any shall say that there is

not required in the ministers while they perform and confer the

sacraments, at least the _intention_ of doing what the Church does, let

him be accursed.”