This is a monstrous and fearful assertion, which supposes it to be in

the power of every malicious or sceptical priest to deprive the

holiest of GOD’S worshippers of the grace which is sought in the

sacraments. There is mention of this notion in Pope Eugenius’s letter

to the Armenians at the Council of Florence; but this was the first

time that a reputed general council sanctioned it. But the Church of

Rome is not content with placing all receivers of sacraments at the

mercy of the priest’s intention; and when we know how many avowed

infidels there have been found in the ranks of her priesthood, this

alone (according to her own theory) opens a fearful door to doubt and

hesitation, affecting the validity of the ordinations and

administrations within her pale since the Council of Trent; but in the

sacrament of the holy eucharist she has placed the communicants at the

mercy of the baker’s and vintner’s intention, and any malevolent

tradesman who supplies the wine and wafers to be used in the LORD’S

supper, has it in its power, according to their rubrics, to deprive

the communicants of the grace of the sacrament. For, “Si panis non sit

triticeus, vel si triticeus, admixtus sit granis alterius generis in

tanta quantitate, ut non mancat panis triticeus, vel sit alioqui

corruptus: _non conficitur sacramentum_.” “Si sit confectus de aqua

rosacea, vel alterius distillationis, _dubium est an conficiatur_.”

“Si vinum sit factum penitus acetum, vel penitus putridum, vel de uvis

acerbis seu non maturis expressum; vel ei admixtum tantum aquæ ut

vinum sit corruptum, _non conficitur sacramentum_.”—_Rubricæ Generales

Missalis Rom._

INTERCESSIONS. That part of the Litany in which, having already prayed

for ourselves, we now proceed to supplicate God’s mercy for others. The

intercessions are accompanied by the response, “We beseech thee to hear

us, good LORD.” (See _Litany_.) The different species of prayer are

alluded to by St. Paul, 1 Tim. ii. 1. “I exhort, therefore, that first

of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be

made for all men.” δεήσεις, προσευχὰς, ἐντεύξεις, εὐχαριστίας.

INTERCESSOR. (See _Lord_ and _Jesus_.) One who pleads in behalf of

another. The title is applied emphatically to our blessed LORD, “who

ever liveth to make intercession for us.” The practice of the Romanists

in investing angels and departed saints with the character of

intercessors, is rejected as being unsanctioned by Catholic antiquity,

as resting on no Scriptural authority, and as being derogatory to the

dignity of our REDEEMER. (See _Invocation_, _Saints_, _Idolatry_.)

INTERDICT. An ecclesiastical censure, whereby the Church of Rome forbids

the administration of the sacraments and the performance of Divine

service to a kingdom, province, town, &c. Some people pretend this

custom was introduced in the fourth or fifth century; but the opinion

that it began in the ninth, is much more probable: there are some

instances of it since that age, and particularly Alexander III., in

1170, superciliously put the kingdom of England under an interdict,

forbidding the clergy to perform any part of Divine service unless

baptism to infants, taking confessions, and giving absolutions to dying

penitents, which was the usual restraint of an interdict; but the

succeeding popes, for reasons best known to themselves, seldom make use

of it.—_Broughton._

INTERIM. (_Lat._) The name of a formulary, or confession of faith,

obtruded upon the Protestants, after the death of Luther, by the emperor

Charles V., when he had defeated their forces. It was so called, because

it was only to take place in the _Interim_, till a general council

should decide all the points in question between the Protestants and

Catholics. The occasion of it was this: the emperor had made choice of

three divines, viz. Julius Pflug, bishop of Naumberg, Michael Helding,

titular bishop of Sidon, and John Agricola, preacher to the Elector of

Brandenburg; who drew up a project consisting of twenty-six articles

concerning the points of religion in dispute between the Catholics and

Protestants. The controverted points were, the state of Adam before and

after his fall; the redemption of mankind by JESUS CHRIST; the

justification of sins; charity and good works; the confidence we ought

to have in _God_, that our sins are remitted; the Church, and its true

marks; its power, authority, and ministers; the pope and bishops; the

sacraments; the mass; the commemoration of saints; their intercession;

and prayers for the dead.

The emperor sent this project to the pope for his approbation, which he

refused; whereupon Charles V. published the imperial constitution called

the _Interim_, wherein he declared, that “it was his will, that all his

Catholic dominions should, for the future, inviolably observe the

customs, statutes, and ordinances of the Universal Church; and that

those who had separated themselves from it, should either reunite

themselves to it, or at least conform to this constitution; and that all

should quietly expect the decisions of the general council.” This

ordinance was published in the Diet of Augsburg, May 15th, 1548. But

this device neither pleased the pope nor the Protestants; the Lutheran

preachers openly declared they would not receive it, alleging that it

reestablished Popery. Some chose rather to quit their chairs and livings

than to subscribe it; nor would the Duke of Saxony receive it. Calvin,

and several others, wrote against it. On the other side, the emperor was

so severe against those who refused to accept, that he disfranchised the

cities of Magdeburg and Constance, for their opposition.—_Broughton._

INTERMEDIATE STATE. A term made use of to denote the state of the soul

between death and the resurrection. From the Scriptures speaking

frequently of the dead sleeping in their graves, many have supposed that

the soul sleeps till the resurrection, i. e. is in a state of entire

insensibility. But against this opinion, and that the soul, after death,

enters immediately into a state of conscious happiness or misery, though

not of final reward or punishment, the following passages seem to be

conclusive: Matt. xvii. 3; Luke xxiii. 43; 2 Cor. v. 6; Phil. i. 21;

Luke xvi. 22, 23; Rev. vi. 9. (See _Hell_.)

INTONATION, properly speaking, the recitation by the chanter, or rector

chori, of the commencing words of the psalm or hymn, before the choir

begins: as is often practised in the English choirs, with respect to the

_Venite_, the _Te Deum_, the Nicene Creed, and the _Gloria in Excelsis_.

The intonations of the Gregorian Psalm chant are regularly prescribed.

Intonation is also applied to the commencement of _each verse_ of the

Canticles (sung however by the choir) before the reciting note. The

intonations are the same as in the psalm chants; but in the latter they

are confined to the first verse of each psalm. The word is sometimes,

but inaccurately, used for the _chanting_ of the services by the priest

or minister in the musical tone proper to choirs—_Jebb._

INTROIT. In the ancient Church a psalm was sung or chanted immediately

before the collect, Epistle, and Gospel. As this took place while the

priest was entering within the septum or rails of the altar, it acquired

the name of _Introitus_ or _Introit_.

Cardinal Bona says that Introits, as used in the Roman Church, were

introduced by Pope Cœlestine (A. D. 422–432). The Introit consists of

one or more verses, generally from the Psalms, but sometimes from other

parts of Scripture. This anthem is the Introit, properly so called. Then

follows a verse from the psalm (anciently a whole psalm): then the

Gloria Patri, after which the Introit, or commencing anthem, is

repeated. The First Prayer Book of Edward VI., (A. D. 1549,) appoints

special psalms to be used as _Introits_ on all Sundays and holy-days.

These differ altogether from the Roman Introits, both in their selection

and in their construction. They are entire psalms, with the Gloria

Patri, and without any verse. The psalm or hymn now universally sung in

our churches before the Communion Service, may be said to represent the

Introit, as Bishop Bull observes. “In cathedral or mother churches there

is still a decent distinction between the two services: for before the

priest goes to the altar to read the second service, there is a short

but excellent anthem sung, in imitation whereof in the churches of

London, and in other greater churches of the country, instead of that

anthem there is part of a psalm sung.”—_Jebb._

In _Clifford’s Introduction_, (1664,) it appears that a voluntary at

that time preceded the Communion Service at St. Paul’s. Shortly after

this time, the custom arose, now universal in choirs, of singing a

Sanctus in this place: St. Paul’s, Westminster, and Canterbury were the

first to adopt it. In parish churches, a metrical psalm is usually sung

in this place, and very properly.

INVENTION OF THE HOLY CROSS. A festival kept by the Church of Rome, in

memory of the day on which they affirm our SAVIOUR’S cross was found by

the empress Helena, in the time of Constantine the Great; concerning

which the following story has been fabricated. That princess being at

Jerusalem, was informed that the cross of our SAVIOUR was buried in the

sepulchre, upon which she ordered them to dig, when they found the cross

and the nails, together with the crosses of the two thieves: but the

wood on which the inscription was made being separated from the cross,

they could not distinguish that of our SAVIOUR from the others, till

Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, found out the following expedient: he

ordered a dying woman to be brought and laid upon the crosses, two of

which gave her no manner of relief, but being set upon the third, she

perfectly recovered from the first moment she touched it, whereby they

plainly discovered that it was the same on which our SAVIOUR suffered.

The empress built a stately church in the place where the cross was

found, where she left some part of the wood richly ornamented, carrying

the rest with the nails to Constantinople.

INVESTITURE. The act of conferring a bishopric, by delivering a pastoral

staff or ring. Concerning the right of investiture, violent disputes

arose in the middle ages, between the emperors and the popes, for an

account of which the reader is referred to Mosheim, Cent. XI. part ii.

chap. 2, the account being too long for insertion here.

INVISIBLES. A distinguishing name given to the disciples of Osiander,

Flacius Illyricus, Swenkfeld, &c., being so denominated because they

denied the perpetual visibility of the Church. Palmer remarks, that the

reformed seem generally to have taught the doctrine of the visibility of

the Church, until some of them deemed it necessary, in consequence of

their controversy with the Romanists, who asked them where their Church

existed before Luther, to maintain that the Church might sometimes be

invisible. This mistaken view appears in the Belgic Confession, and was

adopted by some of the Protestants; but it arose entirely from their

error in forsaking the defensive ground which their predecessors had

taken at first, and placing themselves in the false position of claiming

the exclusive title of the Church of CHRIST, according to the ordinary

signification of the term. Jurieu, a minister of the French Protestants,

has shown this, and has endeavoured to prove that the Church of CHRIST

is essentially visible, and that it never remained obscured, without

ministry or sacraments, even in the persecutions, or in the time of

Arianism. The same truth has been acknowledged by several denominations

of dissenters in Britain.

INVITATORY. Some text of Scripture, adapted and chosen for the occasion

of the day, and used in ancient times before the _Venite_, which is also

called the _Invitatory Psalm_.

The Invitatories, as given in the Roman Breviaries, are two verses,

“Adoremus Dominum, qui fecit nos,” and “qui fecit nos:” the former sung

before and after the psalm, and at the end of the 2nd, 6th, and 1Oth

verses; and the latter at the end of the 4th and 8th.—_Jebb._

INVOCATION. The commencing part of the Litany, containing the invocation

of each Person of the Godhead, severally, and of the Blessed Trinity in

Unity. This distinction is made in the margin of Nicholls’s edition of

the Common Prayer.

INVOCATION OF SAINTS. The thirty-fifth canon of the Council of Laodicea

runs thus: “It does not behove Christians to leave the Church of GOD,

and go and invoke angels, and make assemblies; which things are

forbidden. If, therefore, any one be detected idling in their secret

idolatry, let him be accursed, because he has forsaken our LORD JESUS

CHRIST, the SON of GOD, and gone to idolatry.” This plain testimony of

the fathers of the primitive Church, against the invocation and

worshipping of angels, which is denounced as idolatry, is not to be set

aside by all the ingenuity of the Roman writers.—See their attempts,

_Labbe_ and _Cossart_, i. 1526. The subtle distinctions of _Latria_,

_Dulia_, and the rest, had not entered the imagination of Theodoret when

he cited this canon as condemning the worshipping of angels, σύνοδος ἐν

Λαοδικείᾳ τῆς Φρυγίας νόμῳ κεκώλυκε τὸ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις προσεύχεσθαι

(_Comm. Coloss._ ii. 18); nor into that of Origen, who expressly says,

that men ought not to worship or adore the angels, for that all prayer

and supplication, and intercession and thanksgiving, should be made to

God alone, (_Contra Celsum_, v. § 4,) and that right reason forbids the

invocation of them.—_Ibid._ § 5.

But in the twenty-fifth session of the Popish Council of Trent, the

synod thus rules: “Of the invocation, veneration, and relics of the

saints, and the sacred images, the holy synod commands the bishops and

others who have the office and care of instruction, that according to

the custom of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, which has been received

from the first ages of the Christian religion, the consent of the holy

Fathers, and the decrees of the sacred councils, they make it a chief

point diligently to instruct the faithful concerning the intercession

and invocation of saints, the honour of relics, and the lawful use of

images, teaching them that the saints reigning together with CHRIST,

offer to GOD their prayers for men; that it is good and useful to invoke

them with supplication, and, on account of the benefits obtained from

GOD through his SON JESUS CHRIST our LORD, who alone is our Redeemer and

Saviour, to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and assistance; but

that they who deny that the saints enjoying eternal happiness in heaven

are to be invoked, or who assert either that they do not pray for men,

or that the invoking them that they may pray for each of us, is

idolatry; or that it is contrary to the word of GOD, and opposed to the

honour of the one Mediator between GOD and man; or that it is folly,

either by word or thought, to supplicate them who are reigning in

heaven; are impious in their opinions.

“Also that the holy bodies of the holy martyrs and others living with

CHRIST, which were living members of CHRIST, and the temple of the HOLY

GHOST, and are by him to be raised to eternal life, and glorified, ought

to be venerated by the faithful; by means of which the faithful receive

many benefits. So that they who declare that veneration and honour are

not due to the relics of the saints, or that the honour which the

faithful pay to them and other sacred monuments is useless, and that it

is in vain to celebrate the memory of the saints for the sake of

obtaining their assistance, are utterly to be condemned, as the Church

already has condemned them, and does so at the present time.

“Moreover, that the images of CHRIST, of the Virgin Mother of GOD, and

other saints, are to be especially had and retained in the churches; and

due honour and veneration to be given to them, not because it is

supposed that there is any divinity or virtue in them on account of

which they are to be worshipped, nor because anything is to be asked of

them, nor that confidence is to be placed in images, as of old was done

by the heathens, who placed their hope in idols, but because the honour

which is shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they

represent; so that by the images which we kiss, and before which we

uncover our heads and fall down, we worship CHRIST, and venerate the

saints, whose likeness they bear. That is what has been sanctioned by

the decrees of the councils against the opposers of images, especially

those of the second Nicene Synod.

“But let the bishops diligently teach that by stories of the mysteries

of our redemption, expressed in pictures or other representations, the

people are taught and confirmed in commemorating and carefully bearing

in mind the articles of faith, as also that great advantage is derived

from all the sacred images, not only because the people are thereby

reminded of the benefits and gifts which CHRIST has conferred upon them,

but also because the miracles of GOD by the saints, and their wholesome

examples, are submitted to the eyes of the faithful, that they may give

thanks to GOD for them, and dispose their lives and manners in imitation

of the saints; and may be excited to adore and love GOD, and to

cultivate religion.

“Canon. If any shall teach or think contrary to these decrees, let him

be accursed.”

The first council which decreed this invocation and intercession, is

denounced by the Romanists themselves as schismatical and heretical; it

was the Council at Constantinople, under Constantine Copronymus. Nor

have all the researches of the Romish advocates availed to adduce from

the early ages one single writer, layman or ecclesiastic, who has

enjoined this practice as a duty. All that they have succeeded in

showing is, that in the course of the first five centuries several

individual writers are to be found who commend the practice as useful.

Against these we will cite the following; and from a comparison of the

passages cited on both sides, it will be clear that although,

notwithstanding the reproof of the apostle, (Col. ii. 18,) the

invocation of angels, and afterwards of saints, obtained in some places

in the Christian Church, it was always an open point which men were free

to reject or not, as they might think fit; and that, therefore, both the

Council of Copronymus in the eighth century, and the Council of Trent in

the sixteenth, were violating ecclesiastical tradition, when by their

anathemas they sought to abridge Christian liberty by confirming a

corrupt and foolish custom; especially when the caution of the apostle

Paul, and the decree of the Council of Laodicea, are taken into

consideration. It is a remarkable thing that, among all the liturgies

which Messrs. Kirke and Berrington have cited in their volume, entitled,

“The Faith of the Catholics,” Lond. 1830, amounting to eleven, only one

is to be found, and that of the Nestorian heretics, containing an

invocation to a saint for intercession:—thus showing how wide a

distinction is to be drawn between the excited expressions of individual

writers, and the authorized practice of the Church. All the other

liturgies do no more than the Roman canon of the mass; viz. 1st, assume,

generally, that the saints departed pray for the saints militant; and,

2ndly, pray to GOD to hear their intercessions. This is no more

tantamount to an invocation of the saints, than a prayer to GOD for the

assistance of the angels would be tantamount to a prayer to the angels

themselves.—_Perceval._

IRELAND. (See _Church of Ireland_.)

IRVINGITES. The followers of Edward Irving, a minister of the Scottish

establishment, who was born in 1792, and died in 1834. In 1822, he was

appointed to a Scotch presbyterian congregation, and for some years

officiated in a chapel with great applause, but was at length deposed

from his ministry by the presbytery, for holding an awful heresy

concerning our blessed LORD, whose nature he considered as peccable, or

capable of sin. He still continued, however, to act as minister of a

congregation in London. Both in Scotland and in England he had many

followers; and since his death Irvingism has found its way into Germany

and other foreign countries. The first form which his party assumed was

connected with certain notions concerning the millennium, and the

immediately impending advent of our blessed LORD: and presently after,

as precursors of the expected event, miraculous gifts of tongues, of

prophecy, of healing, and even of raising the dead, were pretended to by

his followers; though Irving himself never pretended to those more

miraculous endowments. Superadded to these notions, was a singularly

constructed hierarchy, of apostles, angels, &c. They affect the name of

Apostolicals.

The Irvingites call themselves The Catholic and Apostolic Church; and

the following sketch of the denomination was supplied by a member to Mr.

Horace Mann, and printed by him in the Census Report of 1851.

“The body to which this name is applied make no exclusive claim to it:

they simply object to be called by any other. They acknowledge it to be

the common title of the one Church baptized into Christ, which has

existed in all ages, and of which they claim to be members. They have

always protested against the application to them of the term

‘Irvingites;’ which appellation they consider to be untrue and

offensive, though derived from one whom, when living, they held in high

regard as a devoted minister of Christ.

“They do not profess to be, and refuse to acknowledge that they are,

separatists from the Church established or dominant in the land of their

habitation, or from the general body of Christians therein. They

recognise the continuance of the Church from the days of the first

apostles, and of three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, by

succession from the apostles. They justify their meeting in separate

congregations from the charge of schism, on the ground of the same being

permitted and authorized by an ordinance of paramount authority, which

they believe God has restored for the benefit of the whole Church. And

so far from professing to be another sect in addition to the numerous

sects already dividing the Church, or to be ‘the One Church,’ to the

exclusion of all other bodies, they believe that their special mission

is to reunite the scattered members of the one body of Christ.

“The only standards of faith which they recognise are the three creeds

of the Catholic Church—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene or

Constantinopolitan Creed, and that called the Creed of St. Athanasius.

The speciality of their religious belief, whereby they are distinguished

from other Christian communities, stands in this: that they hold

apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors, to be abiding ministries

in the Church, and that these ministries, together with the power and

gifts of the Holy Ghost, dispensed and distributed among her members,

are necessary for preparing and perfecting the Church for the second

advent of the Lord; and that supreme rule in the Church ought to be

exercised, as at the first, by twelve apostles, not elected or ordained

by men, but called and sent forth immediately by God.

“The congregations which have been authorized as above stated, are

placed under the pastoral rule of angels or bishops, with whom are

associated, in the work of the ministry, priests and deacons. The

deacons are a distinct and separate order of ministers, taken from the

midst of, and chosen by, the respective congregations in which they are

to serve, and are ordained either by apostles or by angels receiving

commission thereunto. The priests are first called to their office by

the word through the prophets, (“no man taking this honour to himself,”)

and then ordained by apostles; and from among the priests, by a like

call and ordination, are the angels set in their places.

“With respect to the times of worship, the holy eucharist is celebrated,

and the communion is administered, every Lord’s day, and more or less

frequently during the week, according to the number of priests in each

particular congregation; and, where the congregations are large, the

first and last hours of every day, reckoning from 6 A. M. to 6 P. M.,

are appointed for Divine worship; and, if there be a sufficient number

of ministers, there are, in addition, prayers daily at 9 A. M. and 3 P.

M., with other services for the more special object of teaching and

preaching.

“In the forms of worship observed, the prayers and other devotions to be

found in the principal liturgies of the Christian Church are introduced

by preference, wherever appropriate; and in all their services the

bishops and clergy of the Catholic Church, and all Christian kings,

princes, and governors, are remembered before God. It may also be

observed, that in their ritual observances and offices of worship

external and material things have their place. They contend that, as

through the washing of water men are admitted into the Christian

covenant, and as bread and wine duly consecrated are ordained to be used

not merely for spiritual food, but for purposes of sacramental and

symbolic agency, so also that the use of other material things, such as

oil, lights, incense, &c., as symbols and exponents of spiritual

realities, belongs to the dispensation of the gospel.

“Besides free-will offerings, the tenth of their increase, including

income of every description, is brought up to the Lord, (it being

regarded as a sacred duty that tithe should be dedicated to his service

alone,) and is apportioned among those who are separated to the

ministry.

“In England there are about 30 congregations, comprising nearly 6000

communicants; and the number is gradually on the increase. There are

also congregations in Scotland and Ireland, a considerable number in

Germany, and several in France, Switzerland, and America.”

Of late years, it is said, this denomination has made considerable

progress, so that from 1846 to 1851 the number of communicants in

England has increased by a third, while great success has been achieved

on the continent and in America. Returns from 32 chapels (chiefly in the

southern counties of England) have been furnished to the Census Office.

These contained (allowing for one chapel for which the sittings are not

mentioned) accommodation for 7437 persons. The _attendance_, on the

Census-Sunday, was, (making an estimated addition for two chapels with

regard to which no information was received,) _Morning_, 3176;

_Afternoon_, 1659; _Evening_, 2707.

ISAIAH, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. Isaiah

is the first of the four greater prophets, the other three being

Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. He was of royal blood, his father Amos

being brother to Azariah, king of Judah. He prophesied from the end of

the reign of Uzziah, to the time of Manasseh; by whose order, according

to a Jewish tradition, he was sawn asunder with a wooden saw. He

delivered his predictions under the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and

Hezekiah. The first five chapters of his prophecy relate to the reign of

Uzziah; the vision of the sixth chapter happened in the time of Jotham;

the next chapters, to the fifteenth, include his prophecies under the

reign of Ahaz; and those that happened under the reigns of Hezekiah and

Manasseh are related in the next chapters, to the end.

The style of this prophet is noble, sublime, and florid. Grotius calls

him the Demosthenes of the Hebrews. He had the advantage above the other

prophets of improving his diction by conversing with men of the greatest

parts and elocution. This added a gravity, force, and vehemence to what

he said. He impartially reproved the vices and disorders of the age he

lived in, and openly displayed the judgments of GOD, which were hanging

over the Jewish nation; at the same time denouncing vengeance on those

foreign nations, which were instrumental in inflicting those judgments,

viz. the Assyrians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, Moabites, Edomites, Tyrians,

and Arabians. He clearly foretold the deliverance of the Jews from their

captivity in Babylon, by the hand of Cyrus king of Persia; and this he

expressly mentioned an hundred years before it came to pass. But the

most remarkable of his predictions are those concerning the MESSIAH. He,

in plain terms, foretold, not only the coming of CHRIST in the flesh,

but all the great and memorable circumstances of his life and death. He

speaks, says St. Jerome, rather of things past than to come; and he may

rather be called an Evangelist, than a Prophet.

Besides the prophecies of Isaiah still extant, he wrote a book

concerning the actions of Uzziah, cited in the Chronicles; but it is now

lost. Origen, Epiphanius, and St. Jerome speak of another book, called

“The Ascension of Isaiah.” Some of the Jews ascribe to him the Proverbs,

Ecclesiastes, Solomon’s Song, and the Book of Job.

ITALIC VERSION. The old Italic Version, or Vetus Itala, is the name

usually given to that translation of the sacred Scriptures into the

Latin language, which was generally used until the time of St. Jerome,

being distinguished for its clearness and fidelity among the many

versions then existing. It was however translated from the Greek in the

Old Testament, as well as the New; and is supposed to have been executed

in the early part of the 2nd century. St. Jerome, dissatisfied with the

ruggedness and imperfections of the old Italic, first commenced a

revision of it, which, however, he did not complete; and afterwards made

a new translation, which at first gradually, but at length universally,

obtained in the Latin Church, under the name of the _Vulgate_. Of the

old Italic Version, the Psalter and Book of Job, corrected by Jerome,

remain; and are published in the Benedictine edition of St. Jerome’s

Works. The apocryphal books of Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, the two

Books of Maccabees, and perhaps, as may be collected from Dr. Hody, the

remaining chapters of Esther, and the Song of the Three Children, also

belong to this translation. (See _Vulgate_ and _Psalter_.) Consult

_Walton’s Prolegomena_, and _Hodius de Bibliorum textibus originalibus_,

(who corrects Walton in one of his statements,) for a full account of

this version.

JACOBITES, or JACOBINS. Eastern Christians, so denominated from Jacob, a

Syrian, the disciple of Eutyches and Dioscorus, whose heresy he spread

so much in Asia and Africa, in the 6th century, that at last, in the

7th, the different sects of the Eutychians were swallowed up by that of

the Jacobites, which also comprehended all the Monophysites of the East,

i. e. such as acknowledged only one nature in Christ. Their Asian

patriarch resides at Caramit, in Mesopotamia; Alexandria is the see of

the African one, and he follows the errors of Dioscorus and the Cophti.

M. Simon relates that under the name of Jacobins must be included all

the Monophysites of the East, whether Armenians, Cophti, or Abyssines,

acknowledging but one nature in CHRIST; he adds, the number of the

Jacobins, properly so called, is but small, there not being above thirty

or forty thousand families of them, which principally inhabit Syria and

Mesopotamia: they are divided among themselves, one part embracing, and

the other disowning, the communion of the Church of Rome. These last are

not all united, having two opposite patriarchs, one at Caramit, and the

other at Dorzapharan; besides these two, he says, there is one of the

same opinion with the Latins, residing at Aleppo.

JAMES’S, ST., DAY, (_July 25th_,) the day on which the Church celebrates

the memory of the apostle James the Great, or the Elder. He was one of

the sons of Zebedee, and brother of St. John. He was the first of the

apostles who won the crown of martyrdom. (Acts xii. 2.)

JAMES’S, ST., GENERAL EPISTLE. A canonical book of the New Testament. It

was written by St. James the Less, called also the Lord’s brother; who

was chosen by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem. The date of this Epistle

is placed by Dr. Mills in, or just before, the year 60; two years after

which the writer suffered martyrdom, under the high priesthood of

Ananus, and procuratorship of Albinus.

This general Epistle is addressed partly to the infidel, and partly to

the believing Jews. The writer’s design was to correct the errors,

soften the ungoverned zeal, and reform the indecent behaviour, of the

former; and to comfort the latter under the hardships they then did, or

shortly were to suffer, for the sake of Christianity. It is directed to

the Jews and Jewish converts of the dispersion, but no doubt was

calculated for the improvement likewise of those Jews, over whom the

apostle presided in the special character of their bishop.

This Epistle is the first of the Catholic or General Epistles, in the

canon of Scripture; which are so called, because they were written, not

to one, but to several Christian Churches.

JANSENISTS, in France, are those who follow the opinions of Jansenius, a

doctor of divinity of the university of Louvain, and bishop of Ypres. In

the year 1640, the two universities of Louvain and Douay thought fit to

condemn the loose doctrine of the Jesuits, particularly Father Molina

and Father Leonard Celsus, concerning grace and predestination. This

having set the controversy on foot, Jansenius opposed to the doctrine of

the Jesuits the sentiments of St. Augustine, and wrote a treatise upon

grace, which he entitled _Augustinus_. The treatise was attacked by the

Jesuits, who accused Jansenius of maintaining dangerous and heretical

opinions: nor did they stop here, but obtained of Pope Urban VIII., in

1642, a formal condemnation of Jansenius’s treatise. The partisans of

Jansenius gave out, that this bull was spurious, and composed by a

person entirely devoted to the Jesuits.

After the death of Urban VIII., the affair of _Jansenism_ began to be

more warmly controverted, and gave birth to an infinite number of

polemical writings concerning _Grace_. What occasioned some mirth in

these disputes was, the titles which each party gave to their writings.

One writer published _The Torch of St. Augustine_; another found

_Snuffers for St. Augustine’s Torch_. F. Veron composed _A Gag for the

Jansenists_: and the like. In the year 1650, sixty-eight bishops of

France subscribed a letter to Pope Innocent X., to obtain of him an

inquiry into, and condemnation of, the five famous propositions which

follow, extracted from Jansenius’s _Augustinus_:—

I. Some of GOD’S commandments are impossible to be kept by the

righteous, even though they are willing to observe them.

II. A man doth never resist inward grace, in the state of fallen nature.

III. In order to merit, or not merit, it is not necessary that a man

should have a liberty free from necessity. It is sufficient that he hath

a liberty free from restraint.

IV. The _Semi-Pelagians_ were heretics, because they asserted the

necessity of an inward preventing grace for every action.

V. It is a _Semi-Pelagian_ opinion to say, that JESUS CHRIST died for

all mankind, without exception.

In the year 1652, the pope appointed a congregation for examining into

the matter relating to _Grace_. In this congregation Jansenius was

condemned, and the bull of condemnation published, May 31, 1653. After

its publication at Paris, the pulpits were filled with violent outcries

and alarms against the heresy of the Jansenists. The year 1656 produced

the famous “Provincial Letters” of M. Pascal, under the name of _Louis

de Montalte_, in defence of _Messieurs de Port Royal_, who were looked

upon as the bulwark of Jansenism. The same year, Pope Alexander VII.

issued another bull, in which he condemned the five propositions of

Jansenius. The Jansenists affirm that the five condemned propositions

are not to be found in Jansenius’s treatise upon Grace, but that some

enemies of Jansenius, having caused them to be printed on a sheet,

inserted them in a book, and thereby deceived the pope.

Among the enemies of the Jansenists was a certain sect of fanatics,

called _Brothers of the Sodality of the blessed Sacrament_. They sprung

up at Caen, in 1659, and gave out that their smell was so nice, that

they could distinguish a Jansenist by the very scent, and that all the

clergy in that city, except two, were Jansenists.

At last Clement XI. put an end to the disputes about Jansenism by his

constitution of July 17, 1705; in which, after having recited the

constitutions of his predecessors in relation to this affair, he

declares, that, _to pay a proper obedience to the papal constitutions

concerning the present question, it is necessary to receive them with a

respectful silence_. The clergy assembled at Paris approved and accepted

this bull, on the 21st of August, the same year; and no one dared to

oppose it. This is the famous bull _Unigenitus_, so called from its

beginning with the words, _Unigenitus Dei Filius_.—_Broughton._

Jansenism still exists in Holland, where the archbishop of Utrecht

presides over the communion.

JANUARY, THIRTIETH OF. (See _Forms of Prayer._)

JEHOVAH. One of the names given in Scripture to Almighty GOD, and

peculiar to him, signifying the Being who is self-existent, and gives

existence to others.

The name is also given to our blessed SAVIOUR, and is a proof of his

Godhead. (Compare Isaiah xl. 3, with Matt. iii. 3, and Isaiah vi., with

John xii. 41.) The Jews had so great a veneration for this name, that

they left off the custom of pronouncing it, whereby its true

pronunciation was forgotten. It is called the Tetragrammaton,

(Τετραγράμματον,) or name of four letters, and containing in itself the

past and future tenses, as well as the present participle, and

signifies, He who _was_, _is_, and _shall be_: i. e. the Eternal, the

Unchangeable, the Faithful.

The same veneration seems to have actuated most Christian communities in

their translation of the word, rendered in Greek by Κύριος, in Latin by

_Dominus_, and in English by _Lord_. The word JEHOVAH occurs but four

times simply, and five times in composition, in our authorized

translation.

JEREMIAH, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. This

divine writer was of the race of the priests, the son of Hilkiuh of

Anathoth, in the tribe of Benjamin. He was called to the prophetic

office, when he was very young, about the thirteenth year of Josiah, and

continued in the discharge of it above forty years. He was not carried

captive to Babylon with the other Jews, but remained in Judea, to lament

the desolation of his country. He was afterwards a prisoner in Egypt,

with his disciple Baruch, where it is supposed he died in a very

advanced age. Some of the Christian Fathers tell us, he was stoned to

death by the Jews for preaching against their idolatry; and some say, he

was put to death by Pharaoh Hophra, because of his prophecy against him.

Part of the prophecy of Jeremiah relates to the time after the captivity

of Israel, and before that of Judah, from the first chapter to the

forty-fourth; and part of it was in the time of the latter captivity,

from the forty-fourth chapter to the end. The prophet lays open the sins

of the kingdom of Judah with great freedom and boldness, and reminds

them of the severe judgments which had befallen the ten tribes for the

same offences; he passionately laments their misfortune, and recommends

a speedy reformation to them. Afterwards he predicts the grievous

calamities that were approaching, particularly the seventy years’

captivity in Chaldea. He likewise foretells their deliverance and happy

return, and the recompence which Babylon, Moab, and other enemies of the

Jews, should meet with in due time. There are likewise several

intimations in this prophecy concerning the kingdom of the Messiah; also

several remarkable visions and types, and historical passages relating

to those times.

The fifty-second chapter does not belong to the prophecy of Jeremiah,

which concludes, at the end of the fifty-first chapter, with these

words: “Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.” The last, or fifty-second

chapter, (which probably was added by Ezra,) contains a narrative of the

taking of Jerusalem, and of what happened during the captivity of the

Jews in Babylon, to the death of Jechonias. St. Jerome has observed upon

this prophet, that his style is more easy than that of Isaiah and Hosea;

that he retains something of the rusticity of the village where he was

born; but that he is very learned and majestic, and equal to those two

prophets in the sense of his prophecy.

JESUITS, or the SOCIETY OF JESUS. A society which, at one period,

extended its influence to the very ends of the earth, and proved the

main pillar of the papal hierarchy,—which wormed itself into almost

absolute power, occupying the high places, and leading captive the

ecclesiastical dictator of the world,—must be an object of some

curiosity to the inquisitive mind.

Ignatius Loyola, a native of Biscay, is well known to have been the

founder of this, _nominally_, religious order. He was born in 1491, and

became first a page to Ferdinand V., king of Spain, and then an officer

in his army. In 1521 he was wounded in both legs at the siege of

Pampeluna, when having had leisure to study a book of Lives of the

Saints, he devoted himself to the service of the Virgin; and his

military ardour becoming metamorphosed into superstitious zeal, he went

on a pilgrimage into the Holy Land. Upon his return to Europe, he

studied in the universities of Spain, whence he removed into France, and

formed a plan for the institution of this new order, which he presented

to the pope. But, notwithstanding the high pretensions of Loyola to

inspiration, Paul III. refused his request, till his scruples were

removed by an irresistible argument addressed to his self-interest: it

was proposed that every member should make a vow of unconditional

obedience to the pope, without requiring any support from the holy see.

The order was, therefore, instituted in 1540, and Loyola appointed to be

the first general.

The plan of the society was completed by the two immediate successors of

the founder, Lainez and Aquaviva, both of whom excelled their master in

ability and the science of government; and, in a few years, the society

established itself in every Catholic country, acquiring prodigious

wealth, and exciting the apprehensions of all the enemies of the Romish

faith.

To Lainez are ascribed the _Secreta Monita_, or secret instructions of

the order; which were first discovered when Christian, duke of

Brunswick, seized the Jesuits’ college at Paderborn, in Westphalia, at

which time he gave their books and manuscripts to the Capuchins, who

found these secret instructions among the archives of their rector.

After this, another copy was detected at Prague, in the college of the

Jesuits.

The Jesuits are taught to consider themselves as formed for action, in

opposition to the monastic orders, who retire from the concerns of the

world; and in engaging in all civil and commercial transactions,

insinuating themselves into the friendship of persons of rank, studying

the disposition of all classes, with a view of obtaining an influence

over them, and undertaking missions to distant nations, it is an

essential principle of their policy, by every means, to extend the

Catholic faith. No labour is spared, no intrigue omitted, that may prove

conducive to this purpose.

The constitution of the society is monarchical. A general is chosen for

life by deputies from the several provinces. His power is supreme and

universal. Every member is at his entire disposal, and is required to

submit his will and sentiments to his dictation, and to listen to his

injunctions, as if uttered by CHRIST himself. The fortune, person, and

conscience of the whole society are at his disposal, and he can dispense

his order not only from the vows of poverty, chastity, and monastic

obedience, but even from submission to the pope whenever he pleases. He

nominates and removes provincials, rectors, professors, and all officers

of the order, superintends the universities, houses, and missions,

decides controversies, and forms or dissolves contracts. No member can

express any opinion of his own; and the society has its prisons,

independent of the secular authority.

There are four classes of members,—the novitiates or probationers, the

approved disciples, the coadjutors, and the professors of the four vows.

The education of youth was always considered by them as their peculiar

province,—aware of the influence which such a measure would infallibly

secure over another generation: and before the conclusion of the

sixteenth century the Jesuits had obtained the chief direction of the

youthful mind in every Roman Catholic country in Europe. They had become

the confessors of almost all its monarchs, and the spiritual guides of

nearly every person distinguished for rank or influence. At different

periods they obtained the direction of the most considerable courts, and

took part in every intrigue and revolution.

Notwithstanding their vow of poverty, they accumulated, upon various

pretences, immense wealth. They claimed exemption from tithes under a

bull of Gregory XIII., who was devoted to their interests; and, by

obtaining a special licence from the court of Rome to _trade_ with the

nations whom they professed to convert, they carried on a lucrative

commerce in the East and West Indies, formed settlements in different

countries, and acquired possession of a large province in South America,

(Paraguay,) where they reigned as sovereigns over some hundred thousand

subjects.

Their policy is uniformly to inculcate _attachment to the Order_, and by

a pliant morality to soothe and gratify the passions of mankind, for the

purpose of securing their patronage. They proclaim the duty of opposing

princes who are inimical to the Catholic faith, and have employed every

weapon, every artful and every intolerant measure, to resist the

progress of Protestantism.

In Portugal, where the Jesuits were first received, they obtained the

direction of the court, which for many years delivered to them the

consciences of its princes and the education of the people. Portugal

opened the door to their missions, and gave them establishments in Asia,

Africa, and America. They usurped the sovereignty of Paraguay, and

resisted the forces of Portugal and Spain, who claimed it. The court of

Lisbon, and even Rome herself, protested in vain against their excesses.

The league in France was, in reality, a conspiracy of the Jesuits, under

the sanction of Sixtus V., to disturb the succession to the throne of

France. The Jesuits’ college at Paris was the grand focus of the

seditions and treasons which then agitated the state, and the ruler of

the Jesuits was president of the Council of Sixteen, which gave the

impulse to the leagues formed there and throughout France. Matthieu, a

Jesuit and confessor of Henry III., was called “the Courier of the

League,” on account of his frequent journeys to and from Rome at that

disastrous period.

In Germany the society appropriated the richest benefices, particularly

those of the monasteries of St. Benedict and St. Bernard. Catherine of

Austria confided in them, and was supplanted; and loud outcries were

uttered against them by the sufferers in Vienna, in the states of

Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, and elsewhere. Their cruelties in Poland

will never be forgotten. They were expelled from Abyssinia, Japan,

Malta, Cochin, Moscow, Venice, and other places, for their gross

misconduct; and in America and Asia they carried devastation and blood

wherever they went. The great object of the persecution of the

Protestants in Savoy was the confiscation of their property, in order to

endow the colleges of the Jesuits. They had, no doubt, a share in the

atrocities of the Duke of Alva in the Low Countries. They boasted of the

friendship of Catherine de Medicis, who espoused their cause, and under

whose influence the massacre of St. Bartholomew was executed. Louis XIV.

had three Jesuit confessors, which may explain the revocation of the

edict of Nantes.

The Jesuits have been notorious for attempting the lives of princes. The

reign of Queen Elizabeth presents a succession of plots. In her

proclamation, dated Nov. 15, 1602, she says, that “the Jesuits had

fomented the plots against her person, excited her subjects to revolt,

provoked foreign princes to compass her death, engaged in all affairs of

state, and by their language and writings had undertaken to dispose of

her crown.”

Lucius enumerates five conspiracies of the Jesuits against James I.

before he had reigned a year. They contrived the Gunpowder Plot. So late

as the time of George I. both houses of parliament reported, that the

evidence examined by them on the conspiracy of Plunket and Layer had

satisfactorily shown that it had for its object the destruction of the

king, the subversion of the laws, and the crowning of the Popish

pretender; and they state that “Plunket was born at Dublin, and bred up

at the Jesuits’ college at Vienna.” Henry III. of France was

assassinated by Clement, a Jesuit, in 1589. The Jesuits murdered

William, prince of Orange, in 1584. They attempted the life of Louis XV.

for imposing silence on the polemics of their order, and were also

guilty of innumerable other atrocities.

The pernicious spirit and constitution of this order rendered it early

detested by the principal powers of Europe; and while Pascal, by his

“Provincial Letters,” exposed the morality of the society, and thus

overthrew their influence over the multitude, different potentates

concurred, from time to time, to destroy or prevent its establishments.

Charles V. opposed the order in his dominions: it was expelled in

England by the proclamation of James I. in 1604; in Venice, in 1606; in

Portugal, in 1759; in France, in 1764; in Spain and Sicily, in 1767, and

suppressed and abolished by Pope Clement XIV. in 1775. Our own age has

witnessed its revival, and is even now suffering from the increased

energy of its members.

JESUITESSES. An order of nuns, who had monasteries in Italy and

Flanders. They followed the Jesuit rules; and though their order was not

approved at Rome, yet they had several monasteries, where they had a

lady abbess, who took the Jesuit vows of poverty, chastity, and

obedience. They did not confine themselves to their cloisters, but went

abroad and preached. They were two English young women, who, by the

instigation of Father Gerard, set up this order, intending it for the

use of missionaries into England. This order was suppressed by a bull of

Pope Urban VIII., A. D. 1630.

JESUS, is the same with the Hebrew name _Joshua_, or _Jehoshua_, i. e.

Jehovah THE SAVIOUR. As the name _Jesus_ was given to the blessed LORD

by Divine command, so was the name of the son of Nun changed by Moses

from Hoshea, (the Saviour,) to Joshua; he being a type of our blessed

LORD. (Num. xiii. 16.) (See _Christ_, _Messiah_, _Lord_.) The name that

was given by the Divine command to the SAVIOUR of the world. He is

called CHRIST (anointed), because he was anointed to the mediatorial

office, and JESUS (Saviour), because he came to save his people from

their sins.

We are to regard him, as he is our SAVIOUR. I will place salvation in

JESUS “the SAVIOUR” (Phil. iii. 20),—thus declared by prophecy (Isa.

xix. 20), and for this reason so expressly called (Matt. i. 21; Luke i.

31), and the prophecies truly fulfilled (Luke ii. 11; Acts v. 31, xiii.

23), is “the SAVIOUR of the world” (John iv. 42; iii. 17; 1 John iv.

14), “the SAVIOUR of all men” (1 Tim. iv. 10; Luke ix. 56; John xii.

47), who “came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. i. 15; Luke v.

32; Rom. v. 8; 1 John iii. 5), “the LORD and SAVIOUR” (2 Pet. ii. 20;

iii. 2), “the captain of their salvation” (Heb. ii. 10). And he is

revealed as the only way to salvation thus predicted (Isa. xxxv. 8;

xlix. 6; li. 5; lix. 16; lxiii. 1; Joel ii. 32; Matt. i. 21; Acts iv.

12; Heb. ix. 8),—so by himself declared (Matt. xviii. 11; Luke xix.

9),—and by those speaking through the inspiration of the HOLY SPIRIT

(Luke i. 69, with 67; ii. 30, with 26, 27; Acts ii. 21; Eph. ii. 18).

He was sent by GOD for this purpose (John iii. 17; Acts v. 31, xiii. 23;

1 John iv. 14), and is declared to be “the author of eternal salvation

unto all them that obey him” (Heb. v. 9; Isa. li. 6, 8),—that “confess”

him (Rom. x. 9), “believe on” him (Rom. x. 9; Eph. ii. 8; Acts xvi. 31;

x. 43,) and “call on the name of the LORD” (Acts ii. 21),—“to the Jews

first” (Rom. i. 16; Isa. xlv. 17; xlvi. 13; lxii. 1, 11; Jer. xxxiii.

15, 16; Zech. ix. 9; Luke i. 69, 77; Acts xi. 19; xv. 11; xiii. 23, 46),

“and also to the Greek” (Rom. i. 16),—the Gentiles (Isa. xlv. 22; xlix.

6; li. 5; lii. 10; Luke iii. 6; Acts xxviii. 28; Rom. iii. 29; x. 12;

xv. 16; Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11.)

To “that blessed hope” we now look (Tit. ii. 13), through “the

righteousness of GOD and our SAVIOUR” (of our GOD and SAVIOUR, Gr.) (2

Pet. i. 1),—“our SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST” (2 Tim. i. 10; Tit. i. 4; iii.

6). Our salvation has been effected by the sacrifice of himself; “in him

have we redemption—the forgiveness of sins;” not purchased “with

corruptible things,” but with his own “precious blood” (Eph. i. 7; 1

Pet. i. 18, 19), for “he gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim. ii. 6).

And thus having made “peace through the blood of his cross,” he has

“reconciled both”—Jews and Gentiles—“unto GOD in one body.” (Col. i. 20;

Eph. ii. 16.) (See _Bowing at the name of Jesus_.) Joshua, the successor

of Moses, is called JESUS in our translation of the New Testament, Acts

vii. 45, and Heb. iv. 8. Both names are the same in the LXX. and the

Greek Testament, Ἰησοῦς.

JEWS. The general name given the descendants of Abraham, though in

strictness it originally belonged only to the tribes of Judah and

Benjamin, with the Levites settled among them, who constituted the

kingdom of Judah. It has long been synonymous with _Israelites_. On

their laws and customs the reader must consult the books of Moses. The

modern Jews have introduced many very remarkable customs. When any

person is buried, his nearest relation keeps the house a week, sitting

on the ground all the time, excepting on the sabbath day, when they go

to prayers. During this week they do no business. The husband and the

wife are to lodge asunder; and there come at least ten people, morning

and evening, to say the accustomed prayers. They pray for the soul of

the person deceased constantly that week. When the week is ended they go

to the synagogue, and light up lamps and pray, and promise to give alms

for the soul of the deceased. This charitable service is repeated at the

end of every month, and every year. It is customary for the son to say

every morning and evening the prayer for his father’s or mother’s soul.

They believe a paradise, where the blessed enjoy a beatific vision: and

a hell for wicked men, in which some shall continue for ever, others

only for a time. No Jew, unless a heretic, or nonconformist to their

Rabbins’ rules, shall continue in hell above a year. Their creed

consists of thirteen articles:—1. There is one GOD, Creator of all

things, all-perfect, all-sufficient. 2. That he is an uncompounded,

invisible essence. 3. That he is immaterial. 4. Absolutely eternal. 5.

Alone to be worshipped, without any mediators or intercessors. 6. That

there have been, and may be, prophets. 7. That Moses was the greatest

prophet. 8. That every syllable of the law was given to Moses by

inspiration; and that the traditionary expositions of the precepts were

entirely a Divine revelation given to Moses. 9. That the law is

immutable. 10. That GOD knows and governs all our actions. 11. That he

rewards the observance, and punishes the violation, of his laws. 12.

That the MESSIAH will appear, but that his coming is delayed. 13. That

GOD will raise the dead, and judge all mankind.

They _confess_ to none but GOD Almighty; and this commonly on Mondays,

and Thursdays, and all fast-days: on the great day of expiation they

repeat their confessions several times.

There are three sects of them in these times. The greatest and first of

these is that of the Rabbanim, who, besides the Scriptures, receive the

Talmud. The second is the Caraites, who receive only the Scriptures; and

the third is that of the Cuthim, of which there are very few, who admit

only the Pentateuch, or books of Moses.—_Broughton._

JOB. One of the books in the sacred canon, the first of the poetical

books of the Old Testament, and probably the most ancient work that

exists in any form. There have been many differences of opinion upon

almost all imaginable questions concerning this book, the date, the

scene, the author, whether it is to be accounted a narrative of real

events, or a Divine allegory, being warmly debated by different critics.

That Job is a real person, seems however to be determined by the mention

of him with Noah and Daniel, (of whose proper personal existence and

history there can be no doubt,) in the fourteenth chapter of Ezekiel.

Into the other questions it is less important to enter.

JOHN, ST., BAPTIST’S DAY. This festival, in honour of St. John the

Baptist, is observed on the 24th of June.

JOHN, ST., THE EVANGELIST’S DAY. The day appointed for the commemoration

of “the beloved disciple.” St. John the evangelist (so called from the

Greek term which signifies the messenger of glad tidings) was a Galilean

by birth, the son of Zebedee and Salome, the younger brother of James,

but not of him who was surnamed the Just, and who was the brother of our

LORD. His brother James and he were surnamed by JESUS the Sons of

Thunder, for their peculiar zeal and fervency for his honour, which we

see manifested in St. John’s sedulous assertions of our LORD’S Divinity.

He was the most beloved by our SAVIOUR of all the disciples.

St. John exercised his ministry in Asia Minor, and having excited

enemies through preaching the doctrines of CHRIST, was carried prisoner

from Ephesus to Rome, in the year 92. Subsequently to this he was

banished to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote his Revelation. He was

afterwards recalled from his exile by Nero the emperor, and then

returned to Ephesus. His three Epistles were written with reference to

some prevailing heresies of the times; and the scope of his Gospel,

which was his last work, shows that the apostle had in view the same

deniers of the Divinity of the SAVIOUR. He survived till the reign of

Trajan, and died at the age of nearly 100 years.

St. John the Evangelist’s day is on the 27th of December.

JOHN’S, ST., GENERAL EPISTLES. Three canonical books of the New

Testament, being letters written by St. John the evangelist. (See the

last article.)

The First Epistle of St. John has always been received by the Church as

genuine. Though there is neither inscription nor direction, it appears,

by the beginning of chap. ii., to be a Catholic or General Epistle,

addressed not to one, but many Christians. It is probable he wrote it

towards the end of his life, because he mentions the opinion which then

prevailed, that the day of judgment was at hand, and Antichrist ready to

appear. He insists upon the advantages of faith in Christ; he exhorts

those to whom he writes not to suffer themselves to be seduced by false

teachers; and recommends to them good works, the love of GOD and our

neighbour, purity, and other Christian virtues. This Epistle, for matter

and style, is much like the Gospel written by the same apostle.

The two other Epistles which carry his name, have not always been so

generally received. On the contrary, some of the ancients were of

opinion that they were written by another John, called the Elder, a

disciple of the apostle’s, mentioned by Papias. However, Irenæus quotes

the second under the name of John, the disciple of our Lord. In truth,

the spirit, the sentiments, and style of these two Epistles are not only

like, but often the same as the First Epistle; which plainly bespeaks

one and the same author.

The Second Epistle of St. John is directed to the elect Lady; by which

some understand a lady named Electa; others, only some lady of dignity

and distinction; and others, an elect or chosen Church, metaphorically

styled Lady. Whoever she be, the apostle congratulates her, because her

children led a Christian life. He cautions her likewise to beware of

impostors, who denied that Christ was come in the flesh.

The Third Epistle of St. John is directed to Gaius, or Caius. Whoever he

be, (for it is controverted,) the apostle declares to him the joy he

conceived, when he heard of his piety and charity.

It is probable St. John wrote his Epistles, as well as his Gospel, from

Ephesus, after his return from the isle of Patmos.

JOHN’S, ST., GOSPEL. A canonical book of the New Testament, being a

recital of the life, actions, doctrine, death, &c., of our SAVIOUR JESUS

CHRIST, written by St. John the apostle and evangelist. (See the

preceding article.)

St. John wrote his Gospel at Ephesus, after his return from the isle of

Patmos, at the desire of the Christians and bishops of Asia. St. Jerome

says, he would not undertake it, but on condition they should appoint a

public fast, to implore the assistance of GOD; and that, the fast being

ended, St. John, filled with the HOLY GHOST, broke out into these words;

“In the beginning was the Word,” &c. The ancients assign two reasons for

this undertaking. The first is, because, in the other three Gospels,

there was wanting the history of the beginning of JESUS CHRIST’S

preaching till the imprisonment of John the Baptist; which therefore he

applied himself particularly to relate. The second reason was, in order

to confound the errors of the Cerinthians, Ebionites, and other

heretics, who denied the Divinity of JESUS CHRIST.

Some critics have thought, that St. John’s Gospel ended at the 20th

chapter with these words, “Many other signs truly did Jesus,” &c., and

that the following chapter was added, after the death of St. John, by

the Church of Ephesus.

Clement of Alexandria calls this Gospel, “the spiritual Gospel;” and St.

Jerome says of this evangelist, that he wrote of our SAVIOUR’S Divinity

in a very sublime manner, and with a _happy temerity_. Pagan

philosophers have admired the sublimity of St. John’s Gospel. Thus, the

Platonist Amelius, having read the beginning of it, and finding it

conformable to the doctrine of Plato, cried out, “O Jupiter! this

barbarian believes with Plato, that the Word is the beginning.”

Julian the Apostate accuses St. John of introducing novelties into the

Christian religion, by making JESUS CHRIST pass for a GOD, which neither

St. Paul, nor the other evangelists, had dared to do.

It is observable, that the history of the woman taken in adultery,

related in the 8th chapter, is not to be found in all the manuscripts of

this Gospel. Grotius, and others, believed, that the story was taken

from the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and inserted afterwards in that of St.

John. Others pretend, that the Novatians had razed it out. But St.

Augustine thinks, some good orthodox people had expunged it, lest their

wives should make use of it, to prevent that chastisement which their

disloyalty might deserve.—_Broughton._

JONAH. The most ancient of the prophetic books of the Old Testament,

which contains also a part of the history of the prophet whose name it

bears. Jonah is supposed to have prophesied to the ten tribes towards

the close of Jehu’s reign, or in the beginning of Jehoahaz’s reign; but

the great subject of the book which bears his name, is the prophecy

which he was commissioned to utter against Nineveh, with his refusal to

go, his punishment, his second mission, and the repentance of the

Ninevites. The continuing of Jonah three days in the belly of the great

fish, is declared by our blessed LORD himself to have been a predictive

sign of his own burial, and of his resurrection on the third day. This

gives great additional importance to the book of Jonah.—_Broughton._

JOSHUA, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. The learned

are divided in their opinions about the author of the Book of Joshua;

the title at the head of the book being supposed, not to denote its

author, but the subject matter of it, being the history of the wars and

transactions which happened under the administration of Joshua. Some

think the 26th verse of the last chapter are an evidence, that Joshua

was the author of this book: the words are; “Joshua wrote all these

words in the book of the law of the LORD.” But this may only relate to

what is said in this chapter concerning the covenant that the people

made with GOD. For Joshua, a little before his death, having assembled

the Israelites at Sichem, and laid them under a solemn engagement to

serve only the LORD, gave them fresh laws and ordinances, and “wrote all

these words in the book of the law of the LORD.” Some allege what is

said concerning Joshua in the Book of Ecclesiasticus, (ch. xlvi.,) that

“he was the successor of Moses in prophecies,” as a proof that he wrote

a sacred book. But this may mean no more, than that he succeeded Moses

in the spirit of prophecy. The ancient Talmudists, and many of later

date, expressly ascribe this book to Joshua, and the Jews reckon him

among the first prophets, as they call them, though the book is merely

historical.

Some of the ancients, and many of the moderns, deny, that Joshua was the

author of this book. Theodoret affirms, that it was compiled a long time

after the death of Joshua, and that it was but an abstract of an ancient

commentary, called “The Book of Jasher,” or “just men,” spoken of in the

tenth chapter of this book. Others have endeavoured to show, from

particular passages of the book, that it could not be Joshua’s; as when

it is said, (ch. iv. ver. 9,) that “the twelve stones, that Joshua set

up in the midst of Jordan, remain to this day:” and, in another place,

“This place is called Gilgal to this day.” But these, and the like

passages, might have been afterwards added to the collections of Joshua.

However it be, the Hebrews, as well as the Greeks and Latins, have

distinguished this book by the title of Joshua, or Jesus. This great

personage was the son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim. He was first

called Oshea; but Moses changed his name to Jehoshua, or Joshua. These

names, which have all the same root, signify a _Saviour_: and Joshua was

appointed by GOD to be the successor of Moses, and to lead the

Israelites in safety, by subduing their enemies, into the promised land;

the history of which great event is the subject of the Book of Joshua;

which may be divided into three parts. The first is a history of the

conquest of the land of Canaan. The second, which begins at the twelfth

chapter, is a description of that country, and the division of it among

the tribes. The third, comprised in the two last chapters, contains the

renewal of the covenant he caused the Israelites to make, and the death

of their victorious leader and governor. The whole comprehends a term of

seventeen, or, according to others, twenty-seven years.

JUBILATE DEO. (“O be joyful in God.”) One of the psalms appointed to be

used after the second lesson in the morning service. It is the same with

the 100th Psalm in the Psalter. It was first inserted in the Prayer Book

in the Second Book of King Edward VI.

JUBILEE. A solemn season recurring at stated intervals in the Church of

Rome, chiefly marked by the indulgences then granted by the pope to all

of his communion. Boniface VIII. was the first that instituted it, in

1300, in imitation of that of the Jews, ordering it to be observed every

hundredth year. Clement VI. reduced it to fifty, Urban IV. to thirty,

and Sixtus IV. to twenty-five, where it hath continued ever since.

Besides this, the popes, upon their exaltation to the see of Rome, have

frequently celebrated a jubilee, as likewise upon other extraordinary

occasions. The ceremony observed at Rome, for the jubilee, at every

twenty-five years’ end, which they call the holy year, is this: The pope

goes to St. Peter’s church to open the holy gate, (as they call it,)

which is walled up, and only opened upon this occasion; and knocking

three times at the said gate, with a golden hammer, says these words,

_Aperite mihi portas justitiæ_, &c., “Open to me the gates of

righteousness; I will go into them and I will praise the LORD” (Psalm

cxviii. 19); whereupon the masons fall to work to break down the wall

that stopped the gate; which done, the pope kneels down before it,

whilst the penitentiaries of St. Peter wash him with holy water, and

then taking up the cross, he begins to sing _Te Deum_, and enters the

church, followed by the clergy. In the mean while, three cardinal

legates are sent to open the other three holy gates, with the same

ceremonies, which are in the churches of St. John of Lateran, of St.

Paul, and St. Mary Major; and the next morning the pope gives his

benediction to the people in the jubilee form. When the holy year is

expired, they shut up the holy gates again on Christmas eve in this

manner. The pope, after he has blessed the stones and mortar, lays the

first stone, and leaves there twelve boxes full of gold and silver

medals.

The Jewish jubilee was celebrated every fifty years. The word is derived

from _jovel_, which in Hebrew signifies the blast of a trumpet, (Josh.

vi. 4, 13); because the year of jubilee was proclaimed with trumpets.

This year was a year of general rest and universal liberty, wherein all

servants were restored to their freedom, and all sold possessions

returned to their first owners. The Jews observed these jubilees very

exactly till the Babylonian captivity, but after their return did no

longer observe it; for their doctors assure us that there were no

jubilees under the second temple. See Lev. xxv. 9, _et seq._

JUDGES, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book, of the authenticity of which

there is no doubt in the Church, though the author is unknown; some

ascribing it to Phinehas, others to Ezra or Hezekiah, though most to

Samuel.

JUNE THE TWENTIETH. (See _Forms of Prayer_.)

“JURE DIVINO.” By Divine right; an expression frequently occurring in

controversial writings, especially in relation to the ministry of the

Church.

It is evident, and generally confessed, that the right to minister in

holy things is not in every man’s power. If it were so, the very idea of

the ministry, as a distinct class of men, empowered to act “in CHRIST’S

stead,” would be broken up, and the Church would lose its character as a

_society_; for that implies the existence of officers and of

subordination. It is also confessed that in the Christian Church men are

not _born_ to the ministry, as they were under the Jewish dispensation.

Whence, then, comes that authority with which the ambassador of CHRIST

is invested? Is it _human_? Can any body of _men_ confer the power to

rule and minister in a society, the full control of which is in the

hands of the _eternal_ GOD? Most evidently not. _Human power_, or a

commission derived from human resources, is as void and inadequate in

qualifying for the functions of the ministry, as it would be in the

attempt to create a world, or to found a new rank in the hierarchy of

heaven. We are driven then, at once, to the Divine institution as the

foundation of all legitimate power in the Church.

The Head of the Church established a _ministry_, with the right and

ability to execute all its appointed functions. It was not intellectual

eminence, or high station, or influence, wealth, courage, or any other

human attribute, which brought into being “the glorious company of the

apostles;” but it was the sovereign power alone of him “in whom dwelt

all the fulness of the GODHEAD bodily.” And was this power to be

recalled on the demise of those who were every day doomed to stripes,

imprisonments, perils, and death in a thousand shapes? No; for either

the Church for the future must fail, the sacraments be obliterated, the

“watching for souls” be abolished, or the continuation of the sacred

ministry must be demanded with all its original spiritual functions. To

the apostles, therefore, was given, (_jure divino_,) and to them alone,

the ability to perpetuate or transmit the gift which the REDEEMER had

bestowed. From them the prerogatives of episcopacy (or apostolate) were

communicated to younger men, including the transmissive or ordaining

faculty. Under these, the elders and deacons were put in trust with a

share of the original grant of ministerial power,—a power they were

themselves incapable of delegating; and by an unbroken succession, in

the line of bishops, the Divine commission has reached these latter days

of the Church.

If then, as we have shown, _Divine right_ is the only foundation on

which the ministry can stand, there is no alternative left to any one

claiming office in the Church of GOD, but to vindicate the legality of

his mission by _miracle_, or some other tangible Divine verification,

which no man can dispute; or else to bring forth such credentials as

Timothy, Titus, and the ministers ordained by them had to show, viz. the

simple evidence of the fact that the apostles, or their successors, had

imparted to them the authority they claim to possess. This every bishop,

priest, and deacon, in the Catholic Church, is prepared to do.

JURISDICTION. The power and authority vested in a bishop, by virtue of

the apostolical commission, of governing and administering the laws of

the Church within the bounds of his diocese. The same term is used to

express the bounds within which a bishop exercises his power, i. e. his

diocese.

In the Saxon times, before the Norman Conquest, there was no distinction

of jurisdiction; but all matters, as well spiritual as temporal, were

determined in the county court, called the Sheriff’s Tourn, where the

bishop and earl (or in his absence the sheriff) sat together; or else in

the hundred court, which was held in like manner before the lord of the

hundred and ecclesiastical judge.

For the ecclesiastical officers took their limits of jurisdiction from a

like extent of the civil powers. Most of the old Saxon bishoprics were

of equal bounds with the distinct kingdoms. The archdeaconries, when

first settled into local districts, were commonly fitted to the

respective counties. And rural deaneries, before the Conquest, were

correspondent to the political tithings. Their spiritual courts were

held, with a like reference to the administration of civil justice. The

synods of each province and diocese were held at the discretion of the

metropolitan and the bishop, as great councils at the pleasure of the

prince. The visitations were first united to the civil inquisitions in

each county; and afterwards, when the courts of the earl and bishop were

separated, yet still the visitations were held like the sheriff’s

tourns, twice a year, and like them too after Easter and Michaelmas, and

still, with nearer likeness, the greater of them was at Easter. The

rural chapters were also held, like the inferior courts of the hundred,

every three weeks; then, and like them too, they were changed into

monthly, and at last into quarterly meetings. Nay, and a prime

visitation was held commonly, like the prime folemote or sheriff’s

tourn, on the very calends of May.

And accordingly Sir Henry Spelman observes, that the bishop and the earl

sat together in one court, and heard jointly the causes of Church and

commonwealth; as they yet do in parliament. And as the bishop had twice

in the year two general synods, wherein all the clergy of his diocese of

all sorts were bound to resort for matters concerning the Church; so

also there was twice in the year a general assembly of all the shire for

matters concerning the commonwealth, wherein, without exception, all

kinds of estates were required to be present, dukes, earls, barons, and

so downward of the laity; and especially the bishop of that diocese

among the clergy. For in those days the temporal lords did often sit in

synods with the bishops, and the bishops in like manner in the courts of

the temporality, and were therein not only necessary, but the principal

judges themselves. Thus by the laws of King Canute, “the shyre-gemot

(for so the Saxons called this assembly of the whole shire) shall be

kept twice a year, and oftener if need require, wherein the bishop and

the alderman of the shire shall be present, the one to teach the laws of

GOD, the other the laws of the land.” And among the laws of King Henry

I., it is ordained, “first, let the laws of true Christianity (which we

call the ecclesiastical) be fully executed with due satisfaction; then

let the pleas concerning the king be dealt with; and, lastly, those

between party and party: and whomsoever the Church synod shall find at

variance, let them either make accord between them in love, or sequester

them by their sentence of excommunication.” And the bishop first gave a

solemn charge to the people touching ecclesiastical matters, opening

unto them the rights and reverence of the Church, and their duty therein

towards GOD and the king, according to the word of GOD: then the

alderman in like manner related unto them the laws of the land, and

their duty towards GOD, the king, and commonwealth, according to the

rule and tenure thereof.

The separation of the ecclesiastical from the temporal courts was made

by William the Conqueror: for upon the conquest made by the Normans, the

pope took the opportunity to usurp upon the liberties of the crown of

England; for the Conqueror came in with the pope’s banner, and under it

won the battle. Whereupon the pope sent two legates into England, with

whom the Conqueror called a synod, deposed Stigand, archbishop of

Canterbury, because he had not purchased his pall from Rome, and

displaced many bishops and abbots to make room for his Normans. This

admission of the pope’s legates first led the way to his usurped

jurisdiction in England; yet no decrees passed or were put in execution,

touching matters ecclesiastical, without the royal assent; nor would the

king submit himself in point of fealty to the pope, as appears by his

epistle to Gregory VII. Yet in his next successor’s time, namely, in the

time of King William Rufus, the pope, by Anselm, archbishop of

Canterbury, attempted to draw appeals to Rome, but did not prevail. Upon

this occasion it was, that the king said to Anselm, that none of his

bishops ought to be subject to the pope, but the pope himself ought to

be subject to the emperor; and that the king of England had the same

absolute liberty in his dominions, as the emperor had in the empire. Yet

in the time of the next king, King Henry I., the pope usurped the

patronage and donation of bishoprics, and of all other benefices

ecclesiastical. At this time, Anselm told the king, that the patronage

and investiture of bishops was not his right, because Pope Urban had

lately made a decree, that no lay person should give any ecclesiastical

benefice. And after this, at a synod held at London, in the year 1107, a

decree was made to which the king assented, that from thenceforth no

person should be invested in a bishopric by the giving of a ring and

pastoral staff (as had been before); nor by any lay hand. Upon which the

pope granted that the archbishop of Canterbury for the time being should

be for ever _legatus natus_: and Anselm for the honour of his see

obtained, that the archbishop of Canterbury should in all general

councils sit at the pope’s foot, as _alterius orbis papa_, or pope of

this part of the world. Yet after Anselm’s death, this same king gave

the archbishopric of Canterbury to Rodolph, bishop of London, and

invested him with the ring and pastoral staff; and this because the

succeeding popes had broken Pope Urban’s promise, touching the not

sending of legates into England unless the king should require it. And

in the time of the next king, King Stephen, the pope gained appeals to

the court of Rome; for in a synod at London, convened by Henry, bishop

of Winchester, the pope’s legate, it was decreed, that appeals should be

made from provincial councils to the pope: before which time appeals to

Rome were not in use. Thus did the pope usurp three main points of

jurisdiction, upon three several kings after the Conquest, (for of King

William Rufus he could gain nothing,) viz. upon the Conqueror, the

sending of the legates or commissioners to hear and determine

ecclesiastical causes; upon Henry I., the donation and investiture of

bishoprics and other benefices; and upon King Stephen, the appeals to

the court of Rome. And in the time of King Henry II., the pope claimed

exemption for clerks from the secular power. And finally, in the time of

King John, he took the crown from off the king’s head, and compelled him

to accept his kingdom from the pope’s donation. Nevertheless all this

was not obtained without violent struggle and opposition: and this

caused the statutes of provisors to be made, in the reigns of King

Edward III. and King Richard II. The limits of ecclesiastical

jurisdiction were finally settled by the statute of 24 Henry VIII. c.

12. Jurisdiction is also applied to the power vested in certain

dignitaries, as dean, chancellor, &c., in some cathedrals; and in many,

when each individual prebendary had a peculiar jurisdiction.

JUSTIFICATION. (See _Faith_ and _Sanctification_.) Justification, in the

language of Scripture, signifies our being accounted just or righteous

in the sight of GOD.—_Tomline._

A clear understanding of the difference between the Church of England

and the Church of Rome upon this subject is most important, since the

difference between the two Churches on this point causes an essential

and vital difference through the whole system of their theology. The

definition of the Church of England is set forth in her Articles and

Homilies: and it is there propounded in a manner so perspicuous, as to

preclude, it might well be thought, all possibility of misapprehension.

As contained in the eleventh and twelfth and thirteenth Articles, the

definition runs in terms following:

“We are accounted righteous before GOD, only for the merit of our LORD

and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, by faith; and not for our own works or

deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most

wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort: as more largely is

expressed in the homily of justification.

“Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after

justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of GOD’S

judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to GOD in CHRIST, and do

spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that, by

them, a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree is discerned

by the fruit.

“Works done before the grace of CHRIST and the inspiration of his

SPIRIT, are not pleasant to GOD, forasmuch as they spring not of faith

in JESUS CHRIST; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as

the school-authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea, rather, for

that they are not done as GOD hath willed and commanded them to be done,

we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.”

The homily referred to in the eleventh Article, under the title of _The

Homily of Justification_, is styled, in the first Book of Homilies

itself, “A sermon of the salvation of mankind, by only CHRIST our

SAVIOUR, from sin and death everlasting:” and this homily is described

as more largely expressing the doctrine of justification than the

necessary brevity of an article admitted. Therefore, obviously, the

statement contained in it challenges our especial attention.

“Because all men be sinners and offenders against GOD, and breakers of

his law and commandments; therefore can no man, by his own acts, words,

and deeds, (seem they never so good,) be justified and made righteous

before GOD: but every man of necessity is constrained to seek for

another righteousness of justification, to be received at GOD’S own

hands; that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses in

such things as he hath offended. And this justification or

righteousness, which we so receive of GOD’S mercy and CHRIST’S merits,

embraced by faith, is taken, accepted, and allowed, of GOD, for our

perfect and full justification.

“The apostle toucheth specially three things, which must go together in

our justification: upon GOD’S part, his great mercy and grace; upon

CHRIST’S part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of GOD’S justice, or

the price of our redemption by the offering of his body and shedding of

his blood, with fulfilling of the law perfectly and thoroughly; and,

upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of JESUS CHRIST,

which yet is not ours but by GOD’S working in us. So that, in our

justification, there is not only GOD’S mercy and grace, but also his

justice, which the apostle calleth the justice of GOD: and it

consisteth, in paying our ransom, and fulfilling of the law. And so the

grace of GOD doth not shut out the justice of GOD in our justification,

but only shutteth out the justice of man, that is to say, the justice of

our works, as to be merits of deserving our justification. And therefore

St. Paul declareth nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his

justification, but only a true and lively faith: which, nevertheless, is

the gift of GOD, and not man’s only work without GOD. And yet that faith

doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of GOD, to

be joined with faith in every man that is justified; but it shutteth

them out from the office of justifying. So that, although they be all

present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not

altogether. Neither doth faith shut out the justice of our good works,

necessarily to be done afterwards of duty toward GOD; for we are most

bounden to serve GOD, in doing good deeds, commanded by him in his Holy

Scripture, all the days of our life: but it excludeth them, so that we

may not do them to this intent, to be made just by doing of them. For

all the good works that we can do, be imperfect; and, therefore, not

able to deserve our justification. But our justification doth come

freely, by the mere mercy of GOD, and of so great and free mercy, that,

whereas all the world was not able of themselves to pay any part toward

their ransom, it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy,

without any our desert or deserving, to prepare for us the most precious

jewels of CHRIST’S body and blood; whereby our ransom might be fully

paid, the law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied. So that CHRIST

is now the righteousness of all them that truly do believe in him. He,

for them, paid their ransom by his death. He, for them, fulfilled the

law in his life. So that now, in him and by him, every true Christian

man may be called a fulfiller of the law; forasmuch as that, which their

infirmity lacked, CHRIST’S justice hath supplied.

“That we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works, we do

read ofttimes in the best and most ancient writers: as, beside Hilary,

Basil, and St. Ambrose, we read the same in Origen, St. Chrysostom, St.

Cyprian, St. Augustine, Prosper, Œcumenius, Photius, Bernardus, Anselm,

and many other writers, Greek and Latin. Nevertheless, this sentence,

that ‘we be justified by faith only,’ is not so meant of them that the

said justifying faith is alone in man, without true repentance, hope,

charity, dread, and the fear of GOD, at any time and season. Nor, when

they say, that we should be justified freely, do they mean that we

should or might afterward be idle, and that nothing should be required

on our parts afterward. Neither do they mean so to be justified without

good works, that we should do no good works at all. But this saying,

that ‘we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works,’ is

spoken for to take away clearly all merit of our works, as being unable

to deserve our justification at GOD’S hands, and thereby most plainly to

express the weakness of man and the goodness of GOD, the great infirmity

of ourselves and the might and power of GOD, the imperfection of our own

works and the most abundant grace of our SAVIOUR CHRIST; and therefore

wholly to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification unto

CHRIST only, and his most precious blood-shedding. This faith the Holy

Scripture teacheth us: this is the strong rock and foundation of the

Christian religion: this doctrine all old ancient authors of CHRIST’S

Church do approve: this doctrine advanceth and setteth forth the true

glory of CHRIST, and beateth down the vain glory of man: this whosoever

denieth, is not to be accounted for a Christian man, nor for a

setter-forth of CHRIST’S glory, but for an adversary to CHRIST and his

gospel, and for a setter-forth of men’s vain glory.”

The doctrine of the Church of Rome must be taken from the Council of

Trent. The exposition of the Tridentine fathers, assembled in their

sixth session, runs through sixteen chapters; and so extreme is its

verboseness, and so perplexing is its incessant alternation, that we

might be somewhat puzzled to form a distinct idea of their views in

respect to justification, if the last of those chapters had not given

us, in the shape of an article or summary, the result of their prolix

theologising.

Omitting, then, the discussion upon which their definition is built, we

will proceed immediately to the definition itself.

“Since JESUS CHRIST, as the head into the members and as the vine into

the branches, perpetually causes his virtue to flow into the justified;

which virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good

works, and without which they would in nowise be grateful to GOD and

meritorious; we must believe, that nothing more is wanting to the

justified themselves, which need prevent us from thinking, both that

they can satisfy the Divine law according to the state of this life, by

those works which are performed in GOD; and that, in their own time,

provided they depart in grace, they may truly merit the attainment of

eternal life.

“Thus, neither our own proper righteousness is so determined to be our

own, as if it were from ourselves; nor is the righteousness of GOD

either unknown or rejected. For that which is called our righteousness,

because, through it being inherent in us, we are justified; that same is

the righteousness of GOD, because it is infused into us by GOD through

the merit of CHRIST.

“Far, however, be it from a Christian man, that he should either trust

or glory in himself and not in the LORD; whose goodness to all men is so

great, that, what are truly his gifts, he willeth to be estimated as

their merits.”

This article or summary removes all possibility of misapprehension.

Through it, the Church of Rome determines that we are justified, not by

any imputation to us of righteousness, or by any imputation to us of

faith in the place of righteousness, (though each of these imputations

is insisted upon by St. Paul,) but by our own inherent righteousness.

On this, the Romish system, the judicious Hooker remarks: “When they are

required to show, what the righteousness is whereby a Christian man is

justified, they answer, that it is a Divine spiritual quality: which

quality, received into the soul, doth first make it to be one of them

who are born of GOD; and, secondly, endue it with power to bring forth

such works as they do that are born of him: even as the soul of man,

being joined to his body, doth first make him to be of the number of

reasonable creatures; and, secondly, enable him to perform the natural

functions which are proper to his kind: that it maketh the soul amiable

and gracious in the sight of GOD, in regard whereof it is termed Grace;

that it purgeth, purifieth, and washeth out, all the stains and

pollutions of sins; that, by it, through the merit of CHRIST, we are

delivered, as from sin, so from eternal death and condemnation, the

reward of sin. This grace they will have to be applied by infusion; to

the end that, as the body is warm by the heat which is in the body, so

the soul might be made righteous by inherent grace: which grace they

make capable of increase; as the body may be more and more warm, so the

soul more and more justified according as grace should be augmented; the

augmentation whereof is merited by good works, as good works are made

meritorious by it. Wherefore, the first receipt of grace, in their

divinity, is the first justification: the increase thereof, the second

justification. As grace may be increased by the merit of good works, so

it may be diminished by the demerit of sins venial; it may be lost by

mortal sin. Inasmuch, therefore, as it is needful, in the one case to

repair, in the other to recover, the loss which is made, the infusion of

grace hath her sundry after-meals; for the which cause they make many

ways to apply the infusion of grace. It is applied to infants through

baptism, without either faith or works; and, in them, really it taketh

away original sin, and the punishment due unto it: it is applied to

infidels and wicked men in the first justification, through baptism,

without works, yet not without faith: and it taketh away sins both

actual and original together, with all whatsoever punishment, eternal or

temporal, thereby deserved. Unto such as have attained the first

justification, that is to say, the first receipt of grace, it is applied

further by good works to the increase of former grace: which is the

second justification. If they work more and more, grace doth more

increase: and they are more and more justified. To such as diminish it

by venial sins, it is applied by holy water, Ave Marias, crossings,

papal salutations, and such like: which serve for reparations of grace

decayed. To such as have lost it through mortal sin, it is applied by

the sacrament (as they term it) of penance: which sacrament hath force

to confer grace anew; yet in such sort, that, being so conferred, it

hath not altogether so much power as at the first. For it only cleanseth

out the stain or guilt of sin committed; and changeth the punishment

eternal into a temporal satisfactory punishment—here, if time do serve,

if not, hereafter, to be endured; except it be lightened by masses,

works of charity, pilgrimages, fasts, and such like; or else shortened

by pardon for term, or by plenary pardon quite removed and taken away.

This is the mystery of the man of sin. This maze the Church of Rome doth

cause her followers to tread, when they ask her the way to

justification. Whether they speak of the first or second justification,

they make ‘the essence of a Divine quality inherent,’ they make it

‘righteousness which is in us.’ If it be in us, then it is ours: as our

souls are ours, though we have them from GOD, and can hold them no

longer than pleaseth him; for, if he withdraw the breath of our

nostrils, we fall to dust. But the righteousness, wherein we must be

found, if we will be justified, is ‘not our own.’ Therefore we cannot be

justified by any inherent quality. The Church of Rome, in teaching

justification by inherent grace, doth pervert the truth of CHRIST: and,

by the hands of the apostles, we have received otherwise than she

teacheth. Now, concerning the righteousness of sanctification, we deny

it not to be inherent: we grant, that, unless we work, we have it not:

only we distinguish it, as a thing different in nature from the

righteousness of justification. By the one, we are interested in the

_right of inheriting_: by the other, we are brought to the actual

possession of eternal bliss. And so the end of both is ‘everlasting

life.’”

The difference between the two systems may be pointed out in a few

words. The Romish Church teaches that a man is justified by an inherent

righteousness, which, though originally a gift of GOD, as are his soul

and his bodily members, is nevertheless, like his soul, his own.

The Anglican Church, on the contrary, in common with all the other

Churches of the Reformation, teaches: “that man is justified by an

extrinsic righteousness, which is not his own, but the righteousness of

CHRIST; the faith which instrumentally lays hold of it and appropriates

it, and which itself is the gift of GOD, being forensically imputed to

him of GOD, instead of a righteousness which he himself possesses not;

so that he is justified _through_ faith, though not _on account of_

faith; the sole particular, _on account of_ which he is justified, being

the merit and perfect righteousness of our LORD and only SAVIOUR JESUS

CHRIST.”

Whichever scheme of doctrine may be preferred as most agreeable to

Scripture and to antiquity, it is clear, that the two statements here

given are at least incapable of misapprehension. Right or wrong, the two

schemes stand flatly and diametrically opposed to each other. The Roman

Church asserts: the Anglican Church denies. Conversely, the Roman Church

denies: the Anglican Church asserts. The Roman Church asserts the

doctrine of justification by an infused and personal inherent

righteousness: the Anglican Church strenuously denies that doctrine;

admitting, indeed, that the inherent righteousness of sanctification is

always consequentially present with the really justified; but refusing

to it any, even the least, share in “the procurement of justification.”

The Roman Church denies, that the ungodly is justified through faith

alone, nothing else being required to obtain the grace of justification:

the Anglican Church asserts, that the ungodly is justified through faith

alone without works, nothing save faith being required to obtain the

grace of justification, inasmuch as the office of works is not the

procurement of our justification, and inasmuch as it is a contradictory

hysteron-proteron to say that works which “follow after” justification,

and are its “effect,” can yet “procure” it and be its “cause.”

It has been customary to speak of the doctrine of forensic justification

as if it were a Calvinistic doctrine. That Calvin held it is not to be

denied, but all history bears witness that it is not a _peculiarity_ of

the Calvinistic system.

Calvin was born in 1509, and he was yet a schoolboy, or a pluralist in

the Romish Church, (as he became in his twelfth year,) when Luther was

using this doctrine, as _the_ doctrine by which to lay low the whole

fabric of Romish superstition.

Again, it was the doctrine of our English reformers, as most clearly

stated in our Articles and Homilies; and Archbishop Laurence has

triumphantly established the historical fact, that our reformers were

not Calvinists.

If we wish for a clear statement of the doctrine of forensic

justification, we may indeed refer to Bishop Andrewes; and the theology

of Andrewes had certainly no affinity to that of Calvin. Let the reader

peruse with attention the following passage from his sermon on

justification.

“In the Scripture, then, there is a double righteousness set down, both

in the Old and in the New Testament.

“In the Old, and in the very first place that righteousness is named in

the Bible: ‘Abraham believed, and it was accounted unto him for

righteousness.’ A righteousness accounted. And again, in the very next

line, it is mentioned, ‘Abraham will teach his house to do

righteousness.’ A righteousness done. In the New likewise. The former,

in one chapter, even the fourth to the Romans, no fewer than eleven

times, _Reputatum est illi ad justitiam_. A reputed righteousness. The

latter in St. John: ‘My beloved, let no man deceive you, he that doeth

righteousness is righteous.’ A righteousness done. Which is nothing else

but our just dealing, upright carriage, honest conversation. Of these,

the latter the philosophers themselves conceived and acknowledged; the

other is proper to Christians only, and altogether unknown in

philosophy. The one is a quality of the party; the other, an act of the

judge declaring or pronouncing righteous. The one ours by influence or

infusion, the other by account or imputation. That both these there are,

there is no question. The question is, whether of these the prophet here

principally meaneth in this Name? This shall we best inform ourselves of

by looking back to the verse before, and without so looking back we

shall never do it to purpose. There the prophet setteth one before us,

in his royal judicial power, in the person of a king, and of a king set

down to execute judgment; and this he telleth us, before he thinks meet

to tell us his name. Before this king, thus set down in his throne,

there to do judgment, the righteousness that will stand against the law,

our conscience, Satan, sin, the gates of hell, and the power of

darkness; and so stand that we may be delivered by it from death,

despair, and damnation; and entitled by it to life, salvation, and

happiness eternal; that is righteousness indeed, that is it we seek for,

if we may find it. And that is not this latter, but the former only; and

therefore that is the true interpretation of _Jehovah justitia nostra_.

Look but how St. Augustine and the rest of the Fathers, when they have

occasion to mention that place in the Proverbs, _Cum Rex justus sederit

in solio, quis potest dicere, Mundum est cor meum?_—look how they

interpret it then, and it will give us light to understand this name;

and we shall see, that no name will serve then, but this name. Nor this

name neither, but with this interpretation of it. And that the HOLY

GHOST would have it ever thus understood, and us ever to represent

before our eyes this King thus sitting in his judgment-seat, when we

speak of this righteousness, it is plain two ways. 1. By way of

position. For the tenor of the Scripture touching our justification all

along runneth in judicial terms, to admonish us still what to set before

us. The usual joining of justice and judgment continually all along the

Scriptures, show it is a judicial justice we are to set before us. The

terms of, 1. A judge: ‘It is the LORD that judgeth me.’ 2. A prison:

Kept and shut up under Moses. 3. A bar: ‘We must all appear before the

bar.’ 4. A proclamation: ‘Who will lay anything to the prisoner’s

charge?’ 5. An accuser: ‘The accuser of our brethren.’ 6. A witness:

‘Our conscience bearing witness.’ 7. An indictment upon these: ‘Cursed

be he that continueth not in all the words of this law to do them;’ and

again, ‘He that breaketh one is guilty of all.’ A conviction that all

may be ὑπόδικοι, ‘guilty’ or culpable ‘before GOD.’ Yea, the very

delivering of our sins under the name of ‘debts;’ of the law under the

name of a ‘handwriting;’ the very terms of ‘an advocate,’ of ‘a surety

made under the law;’ of a pardon, or ‘being justified from those things

which by the law we could not:’—all these, wherein for the most part

this is still expressed, what speak they but that the sense of this name

cannot be rightly understood, nor what manner of righteousness is in

question, except we still have before our eyes this same _coram rege

justo judicium faciente_.”—_Bishop Andrewes’ Sermon on Justification in

Christ’s Name._ See also _Barrow’s Sermon on Justification_. _Waterland

on Justification._ _Heurtley on Justification._ _Stanley Faber on

Justification._

KEYS, POWER OF THE. The authority existing in the Christian priesthood

of administering the discipline of the Church, and communicating or

withholding its privileges; so called from the declaration of CHRIST to

St. Peter, (Matt. xvi. 19,) “And I will give unto thee the keys of the

kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be

bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be

loosed in heaven.” The power here promised was afterwards conferred on

St. Peter and the other apostles, when the SAVIOUR breathed on them and

said, “Receive ye the HOLY GHOST. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are

remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”

(Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18; John xx. 23.)

The power of the keys is only a ministerial power. By administering the

sacraments, they who have that power do that which conveys grace to

certain souls. But whose souls are these? The souls of faithful and

repentant men. They who are qualified will receive the outward ordinance

which conveys to them the pardon they require: but, to those who are not

qualified by repentance and faith, no blessing can be conveyed; the

blessing of the minister will return to him again.

The power of the keys must likewise refer to the authority of spiritual

rulers to “bind” their people by some ordinances, and to “loose” them

from others, when they have been abused, always excepting the two

sacraments of the gospel, baptism and the eucharist, which, instituted

by our LORD himself, are always binding. When the bishops of a Church

bind their people by an ordinance, their act is ratified in heaven: and

they who seek grace through that ordinance, receive it. Whereas, if they

loose us from an ordinance, as from many ordinances we were loosed at

the Reformation, this act again is ratified in heaven, and to observe

that ordinance becomes superstition, not religion.

Upon Peter’s confession, that JESUS was “the CHRIST, the SON of the

living GOD,” 1. He promiseth to build his Church upon the rock of that

truth, and the rock confessed in it; 2. He promiseth “the keys of the

kingdom of heaven” to Peter only, of all the apostles; meaning thereby,

that he should be the man that should first unlock the door of faith and

of the gospel unto the Gentiles, which was accomplished in Acts x. And,

3. He giveth him power of “binding and loosing,” and this power the

other disciples had in common with him. “Binding and loosing,” in the

language and style most familiarly known to the Jewish nation, (and it

can be little doubted that CHRIST speaketh according to the common and

most familiar sense of the language,) did refer more properly to things

than to persons; therefore he saith, (Matt. xvi. 19,) ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς, not

ὃν; and in Matt. xviii. 18, ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε, not ὃσους. The phrase, “to

bind and to loose,” in their vulgar speech, meant, to prohibit and to

permit; or, to teach what is prohibited or permitted, what lawful, what

unlawful; as may appear by these instances—a few produced, whereas

thousands may be alleged out of their writings. “Our wise men say that

in Judah they did work on the Passover eve till noon, but in Galilee not

at all; and as for the night, the school of Shammai _bound_ it, that is,

forbade to work on it, or taught that it was unlawful; but the school of

Hillel _loosed_ it till sunrising, or taught that it was lawful to work

till sunrise.” They are speaking about washing in the baths of Tiberias

on the sabbath, and they determine how far this was lawful in these

words, “They _bound_ washing to them, but they _loosed_ sweating;”

meaning, they taught that it was lawful to go into the bath to sweat,

but not to bathe for pleasure. “They send not letters by the hand of a

Gentile on the eve of the sabbath, nor on the fifth day of the week.

Nay, on the fourth day of the week, the school of Shammai _bound_ it,

but the school of Hillel _loosed_ it.” “Women may not look in a

looking-glass on the sabbath; but if it were fastened upon a wall, Rabbi

_loosed_ the looking into it; but the wise man _bound_ it.” “R. Jochanan

went from Tsipporis to Tiberias; he saith, ‘Why brought ye me to this

elder? for what I _loose_, he _bindeth_; and what I _bind_, he

_looseth_.’” “The scribes have _bound_ leaven;” that is, they have

prohibited it. “They have, upon necessity, _loosed_ salutation on the

sabbath;” that is, they have permitted it, or taught that it was lawful.

Thousands of instances of this nature might be produced, by all which it

is clear that the Jews’ use of the phrase was of their doctors’ or

learned men’s teaching what was _lawful_ and permitted, and what was

_unlawful_ and prohibited. Hence is that definition of such men’s office

and work: “A wise man that judgeth judgment, and maketh unclean and

maketh clean, _bindeth_ and _looseth_, that is, teacheth what is clean

and unclean, what is permitted or prohibited.” And Maimonides, giving

the relation of their ordaining of elders, and to what several

employments they were ordained, saith thus, “A wise man that is fit to

teach all the law, the consistory had power to ordain him to judge, but

not to teach _bound_ and _loose_: or power to teach _bound_ and _loose_,

but not a judge in pecuniary matters; or power to both these, but not to

judge in matters of mulct,” &c. So that the ordination of one to that

function,—which was more properly ministerial, or to teach the people

their duty, as, what was lawful, what not; what they were to do, and

what not to do,—was to such a purpose, or to such a tenor as this, “Take

thou the power to _bind_ and _loose_, or to teach what is bound and

loose.” By this vulgar and only sense of this phrase in the nation, the

meaning of CHRIST using it thus to his disciples is easily understood,

namely, that he first doth instate them in a ministerial capacity to

teach what bound and loose, what to be done and what not; and this as

ministers: and thus all ministers successively, to the end of the world.

But, as they were apostles, of that singular and unparalleled order as

the like were never in the Church again, he gives them power to “bind

and loose” in a degree above all ministers that were to follow: namely,

that whereas some part of Moses’s law was now to stand in practice, and

some to be laid aside; some things under the law prohibited, were now to

be permitted; and some things, then permitted, to be now prohibited, he

promiseth the apostles such assistance of his SPIRIT, and giveth them

such power, that what they allowed to stand in practice should stand,

and what to fall, should fall; “what they bound in earth should be bound

in heaven,” &c.—_Lightfoot._

There is one thing still behind, which we must by no means omit,

especially upon this occasion, and that is, the power of governing the

Church which our LORD left with his apostles and their successors to the

end of the world; but so that he, according to his promise, is always

present with them at the execution of it. For this power is granted to

them in the very charter to which this promise is annexed; for here our

LORD gives them commission not only to baptize, but likewise to teach

those who are his disciples, to observe whatsoever he had commanded.

Whereby they are empowered both to declare what are those commands of

CHRIST which men ought to observe, and also to use all means to prevail

upon men to observe them; such as in correcting or punishing those who

violate, rewarding and encouraging those who keep them. But our

SAVIOUR’S kingdom being, as himself saith, not of this world, but purely

spiritual, he hath authorized his substitutes in the government of it to

use rewards and punishments of the same nature; even to admonish

delinquents in his name to forsake their sins; and if they continue

obstinate, and neglect such admonitions, to excommunicate, or cast them

out of his Church; and, upon their repentance, to absolve and receive

them in again. This power our SAVIOUR first promised to St. Peter, and

in him to the rest of the apostles. But it was not actually conferred

upon them till after his resurrection, when, having breathed on them, he

said unto them, “Receive the HOLY GHOST: whose soever sins ye remit,

they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are

retained.” As if he should have said, “I, the SON of man, having power

upon earth also to forgive sins, do now commit the same to you; so that

whose sins soever are remitted or retained by you, are so by me also.”

From whence it is plain, both that the apostles received power to remit

and retain sins, and that CHRIST himself concurs with them in the

exercise of that power; and how he doth it, even by his HOLY SPIRIT now

breathed into them. To explain the full extent and latitude of this

power would require more time than can be allowed upon this day, whereon

it is to be exercised; and therefore I shall observe only two things

concerning it, whereof the first is, that how great soever the power be

which our LORD committed to his apostles and their successors for the

government of his Church in all ages, it is but ministerial; they act

only under him as his ministers and stewards, and must one day give an

account to him of all their actions. Yea, whatsoever power they have of

this nature, it is still his power in their hands; they derive it

continually from him, who is always present with them. And, therefore,

as they themselves need to have a care how they exert this power, or

neglect the exerting of it, so others had need take care, too, that they

neither resist nor despise it.—_Beveridge._

Bishop Jeremy Taylor expresses, with great clearness, the primitive

doctrine on this subject: “The same promise of binding and loosing

(which certainly was all that the keys were given for) was made

afterwards to all the apostles, (Matt. xviii.,) and the power of

remitting and retaining, which in reason, and according to the style of

the Church, is the same thing in other words, was actually given to all

the apostles; and unless that was the performing the first and second

promise, we find it not recorded in Scripture how or when, or whether

yet or no, the promise be performed.” And again: “If the keys were only

given and so promised to St. Peter, that the Church hath not the keys,

then the Church can neither bind nor loose, remit nor retain, which God

forbid: if any man should endeavour to answer this argument, I leave him

and St. Austin to contest it.”

The apostles knew nothing of any different power conveyed to one of

their number beyond what was common to him with the rest, as we may

reasonably conclude, since there is no record of any authority exercised

on the one side, or of obedience rendered on the other.

The proposed distinction is, indeed, utterly untenable, and the whole

testimony of antiquity is against it; yet it is maintained by some of

the chief Roman commentators. Maldonat, for instance, who is one of the

best known and most popular, in his exposition of this place, declares

the keys to have been given to Peter, that is, the power of binding and

loosing, of opening and shutting, in subordination to CHRIST alone,

while the rest of the apostles received only an inferior jurisdiction.

For this interpretation he advances no proof at all, except the mention

of the keys in the address to Peter, and the omission in what was spoken

to the rest, which he pronounces an irrefragable argument; and on the

foundation of this alleged separate gift to Peter he builds the right of

jurisdiction for his successors, extending to the supreme decision of

spiritual causes on earth, and the regulating the condition of souls in

purgatory. Cornelius Van den Steen, or à Lapide, as he is usually

called, seems to have followed the interpretation of Maldonat, and says,

that by the keys is signified the power of order and jurisdiction

granted to Peter over the whole Church; and that CHRIST explains his

meaning in the words which follow. He falls into the fallacy of

representing the term “rock” as conveying the notion of government; and

then, as if this were an unquestionably accurate representation, he goes

on to blend figures which have nothing in common, and assumes that in

this way the supreme power of the pope is adequately proved. Like his

predecessor, he vindicates the most unlimited exercise of it, whether in

enforcing obedience, or in granting dispensations, in enacting

ecclesiastical laws, pronouncing excommunications and other censures,

delivering decisions on questions of faith, with other acts which fall

under the head of binding, or those of an opposite character, which

belong to the power of loosing. In order to dispose of the difficult

fact that Christ is recorded to have given the same power of binding and

loosing to others as well, he affirms that Peter was first singled out,

to signify that the rest of the apostles were committed to his care as

his subjects, and that he was empowered to control, limit, or take away

their jurisdictions as he should see fit; though it is clear both that

the apostles exercised, in point of fact, the highest Church discipline,

and that there is not a word which implies their having done so by

delegation. He very characteristically confirms his exposition by a

synodical letter, which the great Roman annalist had given up as

spurious some years before.

Both these writers were theologians of the highest repute, the one

professor at Paris, the other at Louvain. They may be fairly taken to

express the judgment of the party at present dominant in the Roman

Church. Nothing can be more extravagant than their interpretations, or

more feebly supported by proofs; yet they are indispensable to the

position of the ultramontanes. This extreme doctrine, revived by the

Jesuits, for it was invented a century earlier, has no pretence of

confirmation from any of the primitive expositors of Scripture. They

declare, with one voice, that the keys were given to the Church in the

person of Peter. In the words of Ambrose, “what is said to Peter, is

said to the apostles.” Cyprian and Origen, Jerome and Basil, are of one

mind on this point. The statement of Augustine, repeated in a multitude

of places, is as clear as possible that the Church received the power of

the keys, and not an individual apostle. The Fathers were not writing

with any view to the present controversy; and many of their expressions,

taken separately, would give a very untrue representation of their

meaning, by making them maintain opinions which, in their time, had not

been even suggested. Thus Cyprian, in his treatise on the unity of the

Church, applies the disputed texts to Peter; but then he speaks of him

as the type of unity, the representative of a great principle; and to

guard his meaning against perversion, he states, in the plainest terms,

that the rest of the apostles were what Peter was, and had equal

participation of honour and authority. So the Fathers continually speak

of him as figuring the oneness of the Church universal. They exalt his

chair, but they are careful to explain that they are speaking, not of an

individual bishop possessing supreme authority, which was the farthest

from their thoughts, but of that one undivided episcopacy, to use

Cyprian’s well-known words, of which every bishop possesses a portion.

Dupin affirms that the Fathers are unanimous in assigning ecclesiastical

power, either to the Church generally, or to the apostles, and, after

them, to bishops; that there is not one to be found who holds it to have

been given to Peter and his successors alone; and that they have guarded

against any wrong inference which might be drawn from the promise given

to Peter, by showing that he was regarded as the representative of the

Church. He furnishes some authorities on this subject, not only from the

early Fathers, but from popes, great bishops of the Roman Church,

scholastic writers, and universities; and he adds, that the number of

passages which might be adduced is infinite. The same great writer

states strongly the importance of the question: for if, as he says, the

power of the keys belongs to the pope alone, there can be no doubt that

he has authority over the whole Church; since, upon this hypothesis,

neither the Church nor its prelates can have any other power than such

as they derive from him.

In the Council of Paris, held in the eighth century, under the emperors

Louis and Lothaire, the bishops expressly claimed this power of binding

and loosing, without any reference to the successor of St. Peter. The

Council of Constance, in its fourth session, declared, in the strongest

language, that the Church has its jurisdiction immediately from CHRIST;

and this judgment was embodied in acts of the highest significancy and

importance. The Council of Basle, in its first session, passed a decree

in exactly the same spirit, and almost in the very same words. Æneas

Sylvius, the historian of the council, and afterwards Pius II.,

expressly vindicates the text in question from the interpretation which

favours the pontifical authority. So Cardinal de Cusa, writing at the

same period, claims for the other apostles the very same power of

binding and loosing which was conveyed to Peter by the words of CHRIST.

And John Gerson refers to this very place, in maintaining the

superiority of a council to a pope. Even in the Council of Trent, we

find the Cardinal of Lorraine speaking to the same effect; and though he

may be worthless as a theologian, he is valuable as a witness. He

alleged various passages, from Augustine and others, in proof that

bishops derive their jurisdiction immediately from GOD. And, indeed, the

whole argument of the French and Spanish prelates in favour of the

divine right of episcopacy was based on the very interpretation of our

LORD’S words which the Jesuit school condemns.