cure of souls shall corruptly resign the same; or corruptly take for or
in respect of the resigning the same, directly or indirectly, any
pension, sum of money, or other benefit whatsoever, as well the giver as
the taker of any such pension, sum of money, or other benefit corruptly,
shall lose double the value of the sum so given, taken, or had; half to
the queen, and half to him that shall sue for the same in any of her
Majesty’s courts of record.—_Abridged from Burn._
On the subject of general bonds of resignation, see _Simony_.
The following are the forms of resignation now in use:—
No. 1.
_Act of Resignation to be executed before a Notary Public and credible
Witnesses._
In the name of GOD, Amen. Before you, a notary public, and credible
witnesses here present, I ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——,
for certain just and lawful causes me thereunto especially moving,
without compulsion, fraud, or deceit, do purely, simply, and absolutely
resign and give up my said ——, and parish church of ——, with all their
rights, members, and appurtenances, into the hands of the Right Reverend
Father in GOD ——, by Divine permission lord bishop ——, or of any other
whomsoever, having or that shall have power to admit this my
resignation. And I totally renounce my right, title, and possession of,
in, and to the same, with all their rights, members, and appurtenances
heretofore had, and hitherto belonging to me; I quit them, and expressly
recede from them by these presents. And that this my resignation may
have its full effect, I do hereby nominate and appoint ——, jointly and
severally my proctors or substitutes, to exhibit this my resignation to
the said right reverend father, and in my name to pray that his lordship
would graciously vouchsafe to accept thereof, and to pronounce, decree,
and declare the —— of ——, aforesaid, void and to be void of my person to
all intents of law that may follow thereupon: and to decree, if
requisite, that intimation of the said avoidance may be issued to the
patron thereof. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal
this —— day of ——, in the year of our LORD 185—.
Witnesses present, ——
No. 2.
_Attestation of the Notary Public._
On the —— day of ——, in the year of our LORD 185—, the Rev. ——, clerk,
—— of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, appeared personally
before me, the under-written notary public, and resigned, gave up, and
surrendered his said ——, and appointed —— his proctors, jointly and
severally to exhibit his resignation, hereunto annexed, to the Right
Reverend Father in GOD ——, lord bishop of ——, and did and performed all
other things as in his said resignation, hereunto annexed, is
particularly specified and set forth, in the presence of witnesses
attesting the same.
Which I attest, ——
Notary Public.
No. 3.
_Acceptation by the Ordinary of the Resignation._
We accept the resignation of the ——, in the county of ——, and our
diocese of ——, as it is exhibited to us by ——, one of the proctors
therein named, and we do declare the said —— void, and to be void of the
person of the within named ——, the party resigning, to all intents of
law that may follow thereupon, and do decree that an intimation of such
avoidance, if requisite, be issued to the patron thereof.
Dated this —— day of ——, in the year of our LORD 185—.
No. 4.
_Copy of Letter to be sent to the Patron of the Benefice resigned, if it
is not in the Patronage of the Bishop himself._
185—.
I am desired by the Lord Bishop of —— to inform you, that his lordship
accepted the Rev. —— resignation of the —— of ——, in the county of ——,
and diocese of ——, on the —— of ——, and declared the same void.
Please to acknowledge the receipt of this notice.
I have the honour to be,
Your most obedient servant,
——
Secretary.
RESPOND. Before the Reformation a short anthem was so called, which was
sung after reading three or four verses of a chapter; after which the
chapter proceeded.
RESPOND. A half pillar attached to a wall, to support one side of an
arch, of which the other side rests on a pillar. It has its name from
_responding_ or _answering_ to a pillar.
RESPONSE. In the Church service, an answer made by the people speaking
alternately with the minister. The use of responses is not to be viewed
as a mere incidental peculiarity of liturgical services, but rather as a
fundamental characteristic of Divine worship. Responses were not made
for liturgies, but liturgies for responses. Many of the psalms are
constructed on the responsive model, because this was a prior trait of
the worship of the sanctuary; and it is an error to suppose that
responses were introduced because these psalms happened to be in
alternate verses. GOD’S worship is an act in which both minister and
people are concerned. This worship the Church requires to be both mental
and vocal, and has ordered her ritual accordingly,—not degrading the
priest to a proxy, nor the congregation to an audience; but providing
for supplications and thanksgivings, which, like herself, shall be
strong because united. It should be deemed a high privilege by the
churchman, that he is permitted to lift up his voice in prayer, as well
as in praise, “in the congregation of the saints;” that he may openly
profess his confidence in the FATHER of all, and his trust in the “LAMB
OF GOD who taketh away the sin of the world;” that he may join aloud in
the “solemn litany,” and cry for grace whereby he may keep GOD’S holy
law for the time to come. In ages past the privilege was prized. Men
were not ashamed, in primitive days, to confess CHRIST before the world,
and, as it were, to rend the heavens with their fervent appeals. Neither
was it by an ecclesiastical fiction, but in solemn reality, that they
sung, “Therefore with angels and archangels, and with all the company of
heaven, WE LAUD AND MAGNIFY THY GLORIOUS NAME.” May the time come when
such devotion shall again adorn the “spacious courts” of Zion; when the
vague murmur of confession, and the languid tones of penitence, the
silent creed, and the smothered prayer, shall give place to the earnest
and nervous expression of spiritual concern, and the animating testimony
of devout gratitude!
It was a very ancient practice of the Jews to recite their public hymns
and prayers by course, and many of the Fathers assure us that the
primitive Christians imitated them therein; so that there is no old
liturgy which does not contain such short and devout sentences as these,
wherein the people answer the priest, and which are therefore called
“responses.” This primitive usage, which is now excluded not only from
Popish assemblies by their praying in an unknown tongue, but also from
those of our Protestant Dissenters by the device of a long extempore
prayer, is still maintained in the Church of England; which allows the
people their ancient right of bearing part in the service for these good
reasons: First, hereby the consent of the congregation to what we pray
for is declared; and it is this unity of mind and voice, and this
agreement in prayer, which hath the promise of prevailing. (Rom. xv. 6;
Matt. xviii. 19.) Secondly, this grateful variety and different manner
of address serves to quicken the people’s devotion. Thirdly, it engages
their attention, which is apt to wander, especially in sacred things;
and, since they have a duty to perform, causes them to be expectant and
ready to perform it. Let all those, then, who attend the public service,
gratefully embrace the privilege which the Church allows them, and make
their responses gravely and with an audible voice.—_Dean Comber._
But it must be remembered, both here and elsewhere, when our prayers to
GOD are divided into such small portions as we call “versicles,” that
the people are to join _mentally_ in that part which the minister
utters, as well as in that which they are directed to pronounce
themselves. And so the minister, in like manner, must join in what the
people utter, as well as in his own part. For otherwise they do not join
in prayer. Besides, if this be not done, we shall frequently offer to
GOD that which has but an imperfect sense. For instance, in this place,
these words, “and our mouth shall show forth thy praise,” do so
manifestly depend upon what the minister spake just before, that the
sense of the one is not perfect without the other. It is true the Church
requires, that the minister shall say the one, and the people the other
portion; that is, the one portion shall be vocally uttered by the
minister, and the other portion shall be vocally uttered by the people,
alternately and by way of responses; but yet both the minister and the
people ought mentally to offer, and to speak to GOD, what is vocally
offered and spoken by the other party respectively, for the reasons
already given. And, that both the minister and the congregation may be
the better able to do this, they should respectively take care, that
they do not confound and disturb each other by beginning their several
portions too soon. The minister’s first versicle should be finished,
before the people utter a word of the second; and the people should have
time enough to finish the second, before the minister begins the third,
&c.: so that both the minister and people may have time enough
deliberately to offer every portion, and make, all of them together, one
continued act of devotion. The same rule must be observed in all those
psalms and hymns which are used alternately.—_Dr. Bennet._ (See
_Versicle_.)
The Responses, or _Responsals_, as some writers call them, may be said
to be of four kinds: First, those which consist of _Amen_ after the
prayers: Secondly, those which follow the versicles or suffrages:
Thirdly, those which are repetitions of what the minister has said, as
in the confession, some parts of the Litany, &c.: and Fourthly, the
short prayers or anthems, interposed between each commandment in the
Communion Service.
RESPONSORIES, or RESPONDS. These, in the unreformed ritual, are short
verses from Scripture, repeated as verse and response, after the lessons
at matins. Hence perhaps it is that the hymns after our lessons have
sometimes incorrectly been called _responses_; a term, however, which in
this sense seems nearly obsolete. It is to these _responsories_ that
allusion is made in the Preface “concerning the Service of the Church,”
in our Prayer Book. “For this cause he cut off Anthems, Responds,
Invitations, and such like things as did break the continual course of
the reading of the Scriptures.” Here is not meant _responses per se_;
for these our reformers most carefully retained; not anthems per se, as
these are prescribed in their proper places; but the ancient custom was
corrected, which after every three or four verses of a lesson interposed
a respond, &c., so as to interrupt the service; the sequel being taken
up when the respond was finished.—_Jebb._
RESTORATION. The name generally given to the happy return of the Church
of England to the divinely appointed ecclesiastical polity, and to their
allegiance to the lawful prince, Charles II., which took place in 1660;
a happy event, for which Christian people cannot be too thankful, and of
which, and all the dreadful evils from which it delivered them, they
cannot be too often reminded. It has been accordingly appointed by
authority, that the 29th of May, in every year, shall be kept with
prayer and thanksgiving to Almighty GOD for these unspeakable mercies.
RESURRECTION. There are many passages in the Old Testament, which either
obscurely hint at the resurrection, or immediately refer to it. (Job
xix. 23–27; Dan. xii. 2; Isa. xxv. 8; xxvi. 19; Hosea vi. 2; xiii. 14;
Ezek. xxxvii. 1–14.) It follows, indeed, from an acceptance of the
promise of a redeemer. A redeemer was promised as a blessing to Adam and
the patriarchs; but when Adam and the first patriarchs died, how was the
coming of the REDEEMER to be a blessing to them? The answer is given by
Job: “I know that my REDEEMER liveth, and that at the latter day he
shall stand upon the earth; whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes
shall behold;” i. e. by being raised from the dead. The doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead is one of the great articles of the Christian
faith. We believe that JESUS died and rose again; we also believe, for
so we are taught in the New Testament, that “them which sleep in JESUS
will GOD bring with him,” that “CHRIST by his rising became the
first-fruits of them that slept,” that “the dead shall be raised
incorruptible,” that “the grave and the sea shall give up their dead,”
that at this resurrection “the dead in CHRIST shall rise first,” that
the LORD JESUS CHRIST will change “our vile body, and fashion it like
unto his glorious body, according to the working of that mighty power
whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.” (1 Thess. iv.
14–16; 1 Cor. xv. 20–52; Rev. xx. 13; Phil. iii. 21.)
As CHRIST, the “first-fruits of them that sleep,” (1 Cor. xv. 20,) arose
from the dead, so shall there be also a general RESURRECTION OF THE
BODY; for he “that raised up CHRIST from the dead shall also quicken our
mortal bodies.” (Rom. viii. 11.) A seeming difficulty, however, attends
the latter case, which does not the former. The body of CHRIST did not
“see corruption;” but we know that in our case, “after the skin worms
shall destroy the body itself,” and that “yet in our flesh shall we see
GOD.” (Job xix. 26.) We must, therefore, believe that this resurrection,
however apparently difficult, is not impossible, for with him by whom we
are to be raised “all things are possible.” We know that by him “the
very hairs of the head are all numbered;” and he “who measures the
waters in the hollow of his hand,” and “comprehends the dust of the
earth,” (Isa. xl. 12,) whose “eyes” could “see our substance,” “made in
secret,” and “yet being imperfect” (Ps. cxxxix. 15, 16,) can be at no
loss to distinguish the different particles of every different body,
whether it be crumbled into dust, or dissipated into air, or sublimated
by fire. He, too, the artificer of the body so “fearfully and
wonderfully made,” (Ps. cxxxix. 14,) can be at no loss to reunite the
innumerable and widely scattered atoms; for these shall not perish; and
with equal ease reform the man, as he originally made him.
The union of the immortal soul to the companion made for it, (then
become more pure and glorified,) after they have existed together in
this transitory life, is also highly probable; nor is it less so, that
this should be the case as man is an accountable agent, intended to
enjoy eternal happiness, or suffer eternal misery—decreed to “receive
the things done in the body, according to that he hath done, whether it
be good or bad.” (2 Cor. v. 10.) It is also typified by many things
around us: the constant succession of death and revivification—the night
is followed by a new day—the winter, the death of the year, is followed
by the spring, and the renewal of vegetation; the “grain” sown is not
requickened except it first “die,” and is buried in the ground and
brought to corruption.
By this is Reason prepared to assent to Revelation; and therefore, as it
has been prophesied that, notwithstanding this destruction of the body,
yet in our “flesh” shall we “see GOD,” and our “eyes shall behold him”
(Job xix. 26); that the “dead men shall live,” and with the “dead body,
arise;” for “the earth shall cast out the dead,” (Isa. xxvi. 19,) and
that they that “sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt,” (Dan.
xii. 2,) so shall it be accomplished: “there shall be a resurrection of
the dead” (Acts xxiv. 15); “the hour is coming when the dead—all that
are in the grave—shall hear the voice of the SON of GOD,” and “shall
come forth;” the “sea” and “death and hell” (or the grave) “shall
deliver up the dead which are in them” (Rev. xx. 13).
This our LORD, who calls himself “the Resurrection and the Life,” (John
xi. 25,) proved to the Sadducees from the Old Testament; since he who
was then the GOD of their fathers “is not the GOD of the dead, but of
the living.” (Matt. xxii. 32.) St. Paul, too, confirms the doctrine by
most powerful reasoning; declaring, that if there be no resurrection of
the dead, then is “CHRIST not risen;” and then is their “faith” vain;
and he shows, in answer to cavillers, that, as CHRIST is risen, “the
first-fruits,”—so shall “all be made alive,” exemplifying the
probability and the manner of this by a familiar illustration. (1 Cor.
XV. 12–23, 35–49.)
It shall be, too, a resurrection of the body, every one his own body as
it “hath pleased” GOD to give him: although the “natural body,” “sown in
corruption,—in dishonour,—and in weakness,” shall be “raised a spiritual
body,—in incorruption, in glory, and in power.” The “earthly house”
shall have “a building of GOD” (2 Cor. v. 1); the “corruptible” shall
“put on incorruption;” and the “mortal, immortality.” Those that do “not
sleep” shall “be changed,”—“caught up in the clouds to meet the LORD.”
(1 Thess. iv. 17.)
We believe in this article, as the great truth it contains is for the
glory of GOD’S eternal government, “the hand of the LORD shall be known
towards his servants, and his indignation towards his enemies” (Isa.
lxvi. 14); as it proves the value of the “gospel,” which has “brought
life and immortality to light” (2 Tim. i. 10); as it consoles us under
“afflictions,” which are “but for a moment:” since we know that our
“REDEEMER liveth;” and that we “sorrow not,” therefore, “as others which
have no hope” (1 Thess. iv. 13, with 14–18); and excites us “to have
always a conscience void of offence toward GOD and toward men” (Acts
xxiv. 16, with 15); since “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands
of the living GOD!” (Heb. x. 31)—of “him that is able to destroy both
soul and body in hell!” (Matt. x. 28.) Therefore should we be “always
abounding in the work of the LORD; forasmuch as we know that our labour
in the LORD is not in vain.” (1 Cor. xv. 58.)
REVELATION. (1.) The Divine communication of the sacred truths of
religion. (See _Bible_, _Scripture_.)
(2.) The Apocalypse, or prophecy of St. John, revealing future things.
This is the last book of Holy Scripture, and it contains the revelations
made to St. John at Patmos. It is quoted as an inspired book by Justin
Martyr, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and other fathers of
the first three centuries. Its authenticity and genuineness were never
disputed until a prejudice was excited against it by the follies of
certain Millenarians, who thought to support their conclusions by its
authority. But the Church never doubted of its being a portion of
Scripture, or of its Divine origin. Indeed, few books of the New
Testament have more complete evidence of canonical authority than the
Book of Revelation. It treats, 1. “Of the things which were then,” (i.
19,) i. e. of the state of the Church in the time of St. John; and, 2.
“Of things which should be hereafter,” or of the history of the Church,
its propagation, corruption, reformation, and triumph.
REVEREND. Venerable, deserving awe and respect. It is the title given to
ecclesiastics of the second and third orders, the archbishops, and the
bishop of Meath, being styled _most reverend_, and the bishops _right
reverend_. Deans are _very reverend_. In foreign churches, where females
are ordained to offices in the Church, abbesses and prioresses are
called _reverend mothers_. It was so in our own Church before the
Reformation, but, since that time, the custom of consecrating females to
the service of GOD, except so far as all lay persons are so consecrated
at holy baptism and at confirmation, has ceased. The more zealous
Protestants at the time of the Reformation, and especially during the
Great Rebellion, very strongly objected to the title of reverend, as
implying too much to be given to a mere creature, and because of GOD
only it may be said with propriety, “Holy and reverend is his name.” But
dissenting preachers are in these days ambitious of the title, and few
clergymen refuse it. The title of _reverend_ was frequently given, so
late as the 17th century, to the judges of England.
RIGHTEOUSNESS, JUSTICE, HOLINESS. (See _Justification_ and
_Sanctification_.)
RING, _in holy matrimony_. Immediately after the mutual promises or
stipulations in the office of matrimony, the very ancient ceremony
occurs of placing a ring on the finger of the woman. The object of this
is stated in the prayer following, to be “a token and pledge” of the vow
and covenant just made by the parties. Ritualists have supposed, that
the ring was also a pledge or earnest of that honourable maintenance and
participation in “worldly goods,” which are promised in that part of the
office where the ceremony takes place. It has also been considered as a
sign or seal of admittance of the wife to “the nearest friendship and
highest trust,” which it was in the husband’s power to give. It is
probable that there is weight in all these opinions, though the former
seems to be the prominent one in the view of the Church.
Various analogies and figurative applications have sprung from the
ceremony of the ring, some of which are thus stated by Dean Comber and
Wheatly. The matter of which this ring is made is gold, to signify how
noble and durable our affection is; the form is round, to imply that our
respect shall never have an end; the place of it is on the fourth finger
of the left hand, where the ancients thought was a vein which came
directly from the heart, and where it may be always in view; and, being
a finger least used, where it may be least subject to be worn out. But
the main end is to be a visible and lasting token and remembrance of
this covenant, which must never be forgotten; and if in ordinary
bargains we have some lasting thing delivered as an earnest or pledge
and memorial, much more is it needful here; and to scruple a thing so
prudent and well designed, so anciently and universally used, does not
deserve our serious consideration. Indeed, although the use of the ring
in marriage used to be regarded as a remnant of Popery by
ultra-Protestants, it seems now to be universally tolerated.
Besides the pledge of our truth, there is a visible pledge also, namely,
_the ring_, which being anciently the seal by which all orders were
signed, and all choice things secured, the delivery of this was a sign
that the party to whom it was given was admitted into the nearest
friendship and the highest trust, so as to be invested with our
authority, and allowed to manage our treasure and other concerns, (Gen.
xli. 42,) and hence it came to be a token of love (Luke xv. 22); and was
used in matrimony, not only among the Jews and Gentiles, but the
Christians also; who, in Clemens Alexandrinus’s time, gave their spouse
a ring, to declare her worthy of the government of the family; and thus
it hath been used ever since.—_Dean Comber._
The ring is, by positive institution, “a token and pledge of the
covenant made” by the parties contracting marriage; and, as it is a
permanent monument of the vows and promises then reciprocally made, so
it ought to be a perpetual monitor, that these vows be religiously
observed, and these promises faithfully performed.—_Shepherd._
RING, _in investitures_. A ring was anciently given to bishops on their
consecration, with these words, “Accipe annulum, discretionis et
honoris, fidei signum; ut quæ signanda, signes; et quæ aperienda sunt,
aperias; quæ liganda sunt, liges; quæ solvenda sunt, solvas.” It was
worn on different fingers, most frequently on the middle finger of the
right hand; and was a sign of the bridegroom’s espousal of the Church in
her representative, the bishop.
Investiture with the ring and staff, which signified a spiritual
character and office, was always claimed by the Church, though sometimes
unjustly usurped by temporal princes.
RITES. (Lat. _ritus_.) Religious observances prescribed by competent
authority.
It is very visible, that in the Gospels and Epistles there are but few
rules laid down as to ritual matters. In the Epistles there are some
general rules given, that must apply in a great many cases; such as,
“Let all things be done to edification, to order, and to peace” (Rom.
xiv. 19; 1 Cor. xiv. 40): and in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus many
rules are given in such general words, as, “Lay hands suddenly on no
man,” that, in order to the guiding of particular cases by them, many
distinctions and specialities were to be interposed, to making them
practicable and useful. In matters that are merely ritual, the state of
mankind in different climates and ages is apt to vary; and the same
things, that in one scene of human nature may look grave, and seem fit
for any society, may in another age look light, and dissipate men’s
thoughts. It is also evident, that there is not a system of rules given
in the New Testament about all these; and yet a due method in them is
necessary, to maintain the order and decency that become Divine things.
This seems to be a part of the gospel “liberty,” that it is not “a law
of ordinances” (Gal. ii. 4; iv. 9; v. 1); these things being left to be
varied according to the diversities of mankind. (See _Article 34_.)
The Jewish religion was delivered to one nation, and the main parts of
it were to be performed in one place: they were also to be limited in
rituals, lest they might have taken some practices from their neighbours
round about them, and so by the use of their rites have rendered
idolatrous practices more familiar and acceptable to them. And yet they
had many rites among them in our SAVIOUR’S time, which are not mentioned
in any part of the Old Testament: such was the whole constitution of
their synagogues, with all the service and officers that belonged to
them; they had a baptism among them, besides several rites added to the
paschal service. Our SAVIOUR reproved them for none of these: he went to
their synagogues: and, though he reproved them for overvaluing their
rites, for preferring them to the laws of GOD, and making these void by
their traditions, yet he does not condemn them for the use of them. And,
while of the greater precepts he says, “these things ye ought to have
done,” he adds, concerning their rites and lesser matters, “and not to
have left the other undone.” (Matt. xxiii. 23.)
If then such a liberty was allowed in so limited a religion, it seems
highly suitable to the sublimer state of the Christian liberty, that
there should be room left for such appointments and alterations as the
different state of times and places should require. In such rules we
ought to acquiesce. Nor can we assign any other bounds to our submission
in this case, than those which the gospel has limited. “We must obey GOD
rather than man” (Acts v. 29); and we must in the first place “render to
GOD the things that are GOD’S,” and then “give to Cæsar the things that
are Cæsar’s.” (Matt. xxii. 21.) So that if either Church or State have
power to make rules and laws in such matters, they must have this extent
given them—that, till they break in upon the laws of GOD and the gospel,
we must be bound to obey them. A mean cannot be put here; either they
have no power at all, or they have a power that must go to everything
that is not forbid by any law of GOD. This is the only measure that can
be given in this matter.—_Bp. Burnet._ (See _Ceremonies_.)
RITUAL. A book or manual in which is given the order and forms to be
observed in the celebration of Divine service, the administration of the
sacraments, and, in general, all matters connected with external order,
in the performance of sacred offices.
Palmer says, the English ritual resembles that of the Eastern Church in
the circumstance of combining all the offices of the Church in one
volume. The Euchologium, or ritual of the Greeks, now comprises the
offices for morning and evening prayer, the liturgy or eucharist,
baptism, litany, orders, &c. The Western Churches have more commonly
divided these offices into at least four parts, entitled, the
_breviary_, the _missal_ or liturgical book, the _ritual_, and the
_pontifical_. The ritual and pontifical correspond to that part of the
English ritual which begins with the Office of Baptism. The ritual,
(termed in the English churches of Salisbury and York, and elsewhere,
_manual_,) comprised all those occasional offices of the Church which a
presbyter could administer. The pontifical contained those only which a
bishop could perform.
The Euchologium, or ritual of the Greek Church, illustrated with notes
by Goar, is well known and easily accessible, and furnishes abundant
information with regard to all the rites of the Catholic Church in the
East. The baptismal and some other occasional offices of the Jacobites
or Monophysites of Alexandria, Antioch, and Armenia, and of the
Nestorians, have been published by Assemani in his “Codex Liturgicus.”
Many of the Oriental offices for ordination, as well as all the Western,
are to be found in the learned treatise of Morinus, “De Ordinationibus.”
The most valuable collection of records relative to the occasional
offices of the Western Churches has been published by Martene, in his
work, “De antiquis Ecclesiæ Ritibus.” This author, with indefatigable
industry, transcribed and edited a multitude of ancient manuscripts, and
collected whatever had previously been published. So that there is
scarcely any branch of ritual knowledge which he has not greatly
elucidated.
ROCHET. A linen garment worn by bishops under the chimere. It was their
ordinary garment in public during the middle ages. The word rochet,
however, is not of any great antiquity, and perhaps cannot be traced
further back than the thirteenth century. The chief difference between
this garment and the surplice was, that it was of finer material, and
that its sleeves were narrower than those of the latter; for we do not
perceive in any of the ancient pictures of English bishops those very
wide and full lawn sleeves which are now used, which sleeves are now
improperly attached to the chimere or black satin robe.
Palmer says, the rochette is spoken of in the old “Ordo Romanus,” under
the title of _linea_; and has, no doubt, been very anciently used by
bishops in the Western Church. During the middle ages it was their
ordinary garment in public.
Dr. Hody says, that in the reign of Henry VIII., our bishops wore a
scarlet garment under the rochette; and that, in the time of Edward VI.,
they wore a scarlet chimere, like the doctors’ dress at Oxford, over the
rochette; which, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, was changed for the
black satin chimere used at present.—_History of Convocations_, p. 141.
(See _Chimere_.)
The chimere seems to resemble the garment used by bishops during the
middle ages, and called _mantelletum_; which was a sort of cope, with
apertures for the arms to pass through. (See _Du Cange’s Glossary_.)
In some foreign cathedrals, the canons wore rochets, as well as other
episcopal ornaments.
ROGATION DAYS. (So called from _rogare_, “to beseech.”) They are three
days immediately before the festival of Ascension. These litanic or
Rogation days were first instituted by Mamertus, bishop of Vienne, in
the fifth century. Mamertus was not the originator of litanical
supplications, but was the first institutor of the Rogation fast, and
the first who applied the use of litanies on these days, accompanied
with public processions, which continued till the æra of the
Reformation. In the Church of England it has been thought fit to
continue the observance of these days as private fasts. There is no
office, or order of prayer, or even single collect, appointed for the
Rogation days in the Prayer Book; but among the homilies there is one
designed for the improvement of these days. (See _Perambulation_.) The
requisitions of the Church are “abstinence” and “extraordinary acts and
exercises of devotion.” Perambulations were in many parishes observed in
the Rogation days. (See _Perambulation_.)
ROMANISM. (See _Pope_ and _Popery_, _Church of Rome_, _Council of
Trent_.) Romanism consists of the addition of certain anti-scriptural
propositions to the articles of the ancient catholic faith.
In addition to what is said in the other articles referred to, we may
state the tenets of Romanism in the words of Morgan, in his interesting
work on the “Verities of the Church.”
1. The spiritual, and, by the Ultramontane party, the temporal,
autocracy of the Bishop of Rome.
2. The compulsory celibacy of the priesthood.
3. Solitary priestly communion, or private mass.
4. The denial of the chalice, or the cup of the blood of our LORD, to
the laity.
5. Compulsory auricular confession.
6. Mariolatry, or the adoration of the Blessed Virgin.
7. Hagiolatry, or the adoration of canonized saints.
8. Transubstantiation.
9. The invention of purgatory.
10. The doctrine of supererogatory merits.
11. Limitation of the Catholic Church of CHRIST to one episcopate.
12. The image and relic system.
13. The doctrines of papal pardons, indulgences, and dispensations.
14. The interpolation of the Apocrypha into the rule of faith.
15. Interdiction of the reading of the Scriptures, except by special
permission.
(For the form of reconciling Roman Catholics to the Catholic Church of
England, see _Abjuration_.)
ROMAN CATHOLICS. Those Christians who follow the doctrines and
discipline of the Church of Rome.
The doctrine of that Church may be seen in Pope Pius’s Creed, and its
discipline under various articles relating to the Christians. (See
_Church of Rome_, _Baptism_, _Eucharist_, &c., _Bishops_, _Presbyters_,
_Deacons_, &c., &c., &c.)
We shall here unite in one point of view the several errors of the
Romish Church, and its deviations from the practice of the primitive
Church. These are:
1. The granting absolution before penance is performed.
2. The worship of angels, saints, relics, images, the cross, and the
host in the eucharist.
3. Appeals to the bishop of Rome.
4. Admitting uncanonical books into the Scripture.
5. The absolute necessity of baptism; and the baptizing of bells.
6. The celibacy of the clergy, and their exemption from the power of the
civil magistrate.
7. The exemption of children from the power of their parents.
8. Auricular confession, and confirmation made a sacrament.
9. The administering the eucharist in one kind only.
10. The abuse of excommunication, in deposing kings, and depriving
magistrates of their civil rights, and burning heretics under pretence
of discipline.
11. The consecration of the eucharist by muttering privately, _Hoc est
corpus meum_, instead of public and audible prayer.
12. The use of interdicts and indulgences.
13. Offering of a lamb at Easter.
14. Original of Lent, and changing the manner of fasting.
15. Exemption of monks from the jurisdiction of the bishops.
16. Allowing of mendicants.
17. Disannulling the marriage of monks.
18. Forbidding the marriage of spiritual relations.
19. Making the marriage of cousin-germans to be incest.
20. Private and solitary mass.
21. Making the mass a sacrifice for the quick and dead.
22. Purgatory, and canonical purgation.
23. Prelatical and sacerdotal power.
24. Ordination of boys, and bishops, without a title.
25. Commutation of penance.
20. Allowing sanctuary for the worst of criminals.
27. Keeping the Scriptures and Divine service in an unknown tongue.
28. Swearing by the creatures.
29. The doctrine of transubstantiation.
30. Using unleavened bread and wafers in the eucharist.
31. Necessity of a visible head, and subjection to the pope of Rome.
The following is the return regarding Roman Catholics made in the
Registrar-general’s Report of 1854.
“The Toleration Act of 1688, by which the Protestant Dissenters were
relieved from many of the disabilities that previously attached to them,
procured no change in the position of the Roman Catholics. They still
remained subjected to the penalties inflicted by the various statutes
which, since Elizabeth’s accession, had been passed for their
discouragement. These were exceedingly severe. Apart from the
punishments awarded for the semi-political offence of denying, or
refusing to admit, the sovereign’s supremacy, the Acts of Recusancy (1
Eliz. c. 2, and 23 Eliz. c. 1) exposed them to considerable fines for
non-attendance at the service of the Established Church; and by other
statutes they were not permitted to establish schools in England, nor to
send their children to be taught abroad—they were excluded from all
civil and military offices, from seats in either house of parliament,
and from the practice of the law,—they were not allowed to vote at
parliamentary elections,—proselytes to Popery, and those who were the
means of their conversion, were subjected to the penalties of
treason,—and, by various oaths and tests, as well as by express
provision, they were hindered in the exercise of their religious
worship, and prevented from promulgating their doctrines. Their
condition was, in fact, deteriorated in the reign of William III.—some
enactments of especial rigour being sanctioned.
“Whether from the effect of these enactments, or from the natural
progress of the principles of Protestantism, it is certain that at this
time the number of professing Roman Catholics in England, who, in the
reign of Elizabeth, were, according to Mr. Butler, a majority, or,
according to Mr. Hallam, a third of the population, had considerably
declined. A Report presented to William, divides the _freeholders_ of
England and Wales, as follows—
Conformists 2,477,254
Nonconformists 108,676
Papists 13,856
—————————
2,599,786
And the number of _persons_ of the Roman Catholic faith is said to be
only 27,696. This statement, allowing for all probable deficiencies,
sufficiently exhibits the great diminution which, from various causes,
had occurred since the period of the Reformation.
“Not much alteration in the position of the Roman Catholics took place
for nearly a century after the Revolution. As the temper of the times
grew milder, many of the penal laws were not enforced; though, while the
throne remained exposed to the pretensions of the Stuart family, the
laws themselves continued on the Statute Book: indeed, some further
measures were enacted during the agitations consequent upon the Roman
Catholic Rebellion of 1715. When, however, in the person of George III.,
the Brunswick dynasty was firmly settled on the throne, a course of
mitigating legislation was commenced, which gradually relieved the Roman
Catholics from all restraints upon their worship, and from nearly all
the incapacities attached to their religion. In 1778, the first remedial
act was passed, repealing the provision in the 10th and 12th of William
III., by which the Roman Catholics were disabled from taking lands by
descent. The Gordon riots of 1780 rather aided than retarded the advance
of public sentiment towards additional relief; and, in 1791, Mr. Pitt,
(having obtained from the chief continental universities, unanimous
opinions that the pope possessed no civil authority in England, that he
cannot absolve the subjects of a sovereign from their allegiance, and
that the principles of the Roman Catholic faith do not excuse or justify
a breach of faith with heretics,) procured the passing of another bill,
by which, upon taking a form of oath prescribed, the Roman Catholics
were secured against most of the penalties pronounced by former acts.
They were left, however, still subjected to the Test and Corporation
Acts, by which they were excluded from all civil and military offices,
were prohibited from sitting in either house of parliament, and were
disabled from presenting to advowsons. The removal of the chief of these
remaining disabilities was zealously urged upon the parliament for many
years successively. In 1813 an important measure, framed with this
intention, was defeated in the Commons by a majority of only _four_:
while, in 1821, a bill to the same effect passed through the lower
House, but was rejected by the Peers. At length, in 1828, the Test and
Corporation Acts were abrogated, and in 1829 the Roman Catholic
Emancipation Act bestowed on Roman Catholics substantially the same
amount of toleration which was granted to the Protestant Dissenters.
“The number of chapels from which returns have been received at the
Census Office is 570; with sittings (after an allowance for 48 chapels
making no return upon this point) for 186,111. The number of
_attendants_ on the Census Sunday (making an estimated addition for 27
chapels the returns from which were silent on this point) was:
_Morning_, 252,783; _Afternoon_, 53,967; _Evening_, 76,880. It will be
observed, that in the morning the number of attendants was more than the
number of sittings: this is explained by the fact, that in many Roman
Catholic chapels there is more than one morning service, attended by
different individuals.”
ROOD LOFT. A gallery running along the top of the rood screen, which in
parish churches usually crossed the chancel arch, on which the _rood_
(i. e. the figure of our Blessed LORD on the cross) was placed, and on
either side the Blessed Virgin and St. John. In large cross churches,
the rood loft with its screen was usually of stone, and sometimes
contained a chapel and altar within it. These more substantial rood
lofts have been almost universally converted into organ lofts.
ROOD SCREEN. A screen separating the chancel from the nave, on which was
formerly the rood loft.
ROOF. The following are the principal terms which occur in the
description of a timber roof.
_Beam._—A horizontal piece connecting the principals of each truss, and
stiffening and tying them together. According to its position, it is
either a _tie-beam_, extending from wall to wall; a _collar-beam_,
connecting the principals near the ridge; or a _hammer-beam_, extending
horizontally from the wall, (and sometimes again from the principal
rafters,) but cut off before it reaches the opposite side. It is only by
its combination with other timbers, as braces, principal, and collar,
that the hammer-beam serves the purpose of a beam in mechanical
construction.
_King-post._ The middle post of each truss, resting upon the beam, and
rising to the ridge.
_Rafters._ Timbers rising from the wall, and inclined towards each other
till they meet at the _ridge_. The _principal rafters_ are let into the
beam at their lower end, and into the king-post at their upper, and
together with beam, post, and braces, where they occur, form the
_truss_, which is the whole complication of carpentry, bearing the
vertical weight of the roof, and delivering it upon the wall.
_Purlin._ A longitudinal piece extending from truss to truss, resting on
the principal, and bearing the common rafters.
_Braces._ Curved pieces tenoned into the main timbers in various places
and directions, and serving to stiffen and tie them together.
_Wall-plate._ A longitudinal piece laid on the top of the wall to
receive the beams.
_Wall-piece._ The upright piece connecting the braces beneath a
hammer-beam with the wall. This subject should be studied in the very
valuable work of Mr. Brandon, “On the Open Timber Roofs of the Middle
Ages.”
ROSARY, among the Roman Catholics, is a pretended instrument or help to
piety, being a chaplet, consisting of five, or fifteen, decads or tens
of beads, to direct the reciting so many _Ave Marias_ in honour of the
Blessed Virgin.
Before a person repeats his rosary, he must cross himself with it: then
he must repeat the Apostles’ Creed, and say a _Pater_ and three _Aves_,
on account of the three relations which the Virgin bears to the three
persons in the TRINITY. After these preliminaries to devotion, he passes
on to his decads, and must observe to let himself into the mysteries of
each ten by a prayer, which he will find in the books treating of the
devotion of the rosary.
Some attribute the institution of the rosary to Dominic: but it was in
use in the year 1100; and, therefore, Dominic could only make it more
celebrated. Others ascribe it to Paulus Libycus, others to St. Benedict,
others to Venerable Bede, and others to Peter the Hermit.
ROSECRUCIANS. A sect of philosophers in the early part of the
seventeenth century, who combined much religious error and mysticism
with their philosophical notions of transmutations, and of the chemical
constitution of things. Their name is derived from _ros_, “dew,” which
they held to be the most powerful solvent of gold; and _crux_, the
“cross,” which in the chemical style signifies light, because the figure
of the cross exhibits at the same time the three letters in the word
_lux_. Now light, according to this sect, and in their absurd jargon, is
the menstruum of the red dragon, i. e. the substance out of which gold
is produced. The Rosecrucians then were alchemists, who sought for the
philosopher’s stone by the intervention of dew and of light. These
absurdities were associated with others in their system which it would
be in vain to collect; but the ruling principle of their society seems
to have been the imposing mystery in which they wrapped up everything
which they knew, or pretended to know, as if the secrets of nature were
made known to them, for the very purpose of being kept secret from all
others. Of their leaders and religious fancies Mosheim gives the
following summary:
At the head of the fanatics were Robert Fludd, a native of England, and
a man of surprising genius; Jacob Behmen, a shoemaker, who lived at
Goslitz; and Michael Mayer.
These leaders of the sect were followed by John Baptist Helmont, and his
son Francis Christian Knorrius de Rosenroth, Kuhlman, Nollius, Sperber,
and many others of various fame. An uniformity of opinion, and a spirit
of concord, seemed scarcely possible in such a society as this; for as a
great part of its doctrine is derived from certain internal feelings and
flights of imagination, which can neither be comprehended nor defined,
and is supported by testimonies of the external senses, whose reports
are illusory and changeable, so it is remarkable that, among the more
eminent writers of this sect, there are scarcely any two who adopt the
same tenets and sentiments. There are, nevertheless, some common
principles that are generally embraced, and which serve as a centre of
union to the society. They maintain, that the dissolution of bodies, by
the power of fire, is the only way through which men can arrive at true
wisdom, and come to discern the first principle of things. They all
acknowledge a certain analogy and harmony between the powers of nature
and the doctrines of religion, and believe that the Deity governs the
kingdom of grace by the same laws with which he rules the kingdom of
nature; and hence it is that they employ chemical denominations to
express the truths of religion. They all hold that there is a sort of
divine energy, or soul, diffused through the frame of the universe,
which some call Archæus, others Universal Spirit, and which others
mention under different appellations. They all talk in the most obscure
and superstitious manner of what they call the signatures of things, of
the power of the stars over all corporeal beings, and their particular
influence over the human race, of the efficacy of magic, and the various
species and classes of demons. In fine, they all agree in throwing out
the most crude, incomprehensible notions and ideas, in the most obscure,
quaint, and unusual expressions.
RUBRICS. Rules and orders directing how, when, and where all things in
Divine service are to be performed, which were formerly printed in a red
character, (as now generally in an Italic,) and therefore called
Rubrics, from the Latin _rubrica_ (_pro ruberica_, _à rubra_, _subaud.
terra_, red earth; thence any _red_ colour). All the clergy of England
solemnly pledge themselves to observe the rubrics.
The _rubric_, to which we here bind ourselves by express consent and
promise, is upon a different footing from all other ecclesiastical laws.
For without considering it as statute, and, as such, only upon the level
with several other subsequent acts of parliament relating to our
occasional ministrations, we are under this peculiar circumstance of
obligation to observe it, that we have, by our subscriptions at both
ordinations, by one of our vows at the altar for the order of
priesthood, by our subscriptions and declarations of conformity before
our ordinary, and repetition of them in the church before our
congregations, and likewise by our declarations of assent and consent,
as prescribed by the Act of Uniformity; I say, we have in all these
several ways tied ourselves down to a regular, constant, conscientious
performance of all and everything prescribed in and by the Book of
Common Prayer, according to the usage of the Church of England. And
seeing it hath been the wisdom of our Church to lay us under these
engagements, in order to preserve exact uniformity in the public worship
and all the liturgic offices; nay, since it hath been judged proper to
carry us through a train of these stipulations before we can get
possession of any benefice; and to make us renew them again and again,
as often as we change our preferment, or obtain any new promotion; and
seeing that we have entered (as we have professed) _ex animo_ into this
covenant with the Church, and have deliberately renewed it as often as
there hath been occasion; how frivolous is it for any of us to say, that
the connivance, or the presumed consent, of our ordinary, or the private
conveniency of ourselves or families, or the obliging of any of our
parishioners, or the apparent inexpediency of adhering to the letter in
some few cases, will dissolve this our obligation to conformity? Surely
we must know, that these and the like allegations are quite out of the
case; that, however our Church governors may dispense with our breaches
of the rubric, however our people may acquiesce in them or approve of
them, yet the question is, how far we are at liberty to dispense with
ourselves on account of the forementioned engagements, to which GOD and
the Church are made witnesses in as solemn a manner as they are to our
personal stipulations at confirmation or matrimony; or whether we have
not in this case precluded ourselves from all benefit of such exemption
or dispensation, as might perhaps be reasonably alleged in several other
merely statutable or canonical matters?
This indeed we must always take along with us, that our obligations to
observe the rubric, how indispensable soever, are subject to this
proviso; namely, that the rule prescribed be a thing practicable; which
perhaps cannot be said of all rubrics in all churches, or in all places
of the kingdom; nay, that it be a thing which falls within the
minister’s power, so that he be not deprived of his liberty in acting,
or restrained in it by the previous acts of other people, whereby that
which would be practicable in itself is rendered not practicable by him.
I will not positively say, that no other proviso is to be allowed of or
admitted; because this cannot be determined absolutely, or otherwise
than by a particular consideration of each rule or injunction under
several different circumstances. But we may affirm in general, that we
are under higher obligations to observe the rubric than any other
ecclesiastical law whatsoever; that excepting a very few cases, or under
some necessary limitations and reservations, we are bound to adhere to
it literally, punctually, and perpetually; and that, whosoever among the
clergy either adds to it, or diminishes from it, or useth any other rule
instead of it, as he is in the eye of the law so far a nonconformist, so
it behoves him to consider with himself, whether, in point of
conscience, he be not a breaker of his word and trust, and an eluder of
his engagements to the Church.—_Archdeacon Sharpe._
RURAL DEANS. The office of rural dean is an ancient office of the
Church, which is mentioned as early as the time of Edward the Confessor,
in one of whose laws mention is made of the dean of the bishop.
The proper authority and jurisdiction of rural deans, perhaps, may be
best understood from the oath of office which in some dioceses was
anciently administered to them; which was this: “I, A. B., do swear,
diligently and faithfully to execute the office of dean rural within the
deanery of D. First, I will diligently and faithfully execute, or cause
to be executed, all such processes as shall be directed unto me from my
Lord Bishop of C., or his officers or ministers by his authority. Item,
I will give diligent attendance, by myself or my deputy, at every
consistory court, to be holden by the said reverend father in GOD, or
his chancellor, as well to return such processes as shall be by me or my
deputy executed; as also to receive others, then unto me to be directed.
Item, I will from time to time, during my said office, diligently
inquire, and true information give unto the said reverend father in GOD,
or his chancellor, of all the names of all such persons within the said
deanery of D. as shall be openly and publicly noted and defamed, or
vehemently suspected of any such crime or offence, as is to be punished
or reformed by the authority of the said court. Item, I will diligently
inquire, and true information give, of all such persons and their names,
as do administer any dead man’s goods, before they have proved the will
of the testator, or taken letters of administration of the deceased
intestates. Item, I will be obedient to the right reverend father in GOD
J., bishop of C., and his chancellor, in all honest and lawful commands;
neither will I attempt, do, or procure to be done or attempted, anything
that shall be prejudicial to his jurisdiction, but will preserve and
maintain the same to the uttermost of my power.”—_God. Append._
From whence it appears, that besides their duty concerning the execution
of the bishop’s processes, their office was to inspect the lives and
manners of the clergy and people within their district, and to report
the same to the bishop; to which end, that they might have knowledge of
the state and condition of their respective deaneries, they had a power
to convene rural chapters.—_Gibson._
Which chapters were made up of all the instituted clergy, or their
curates as proxies of them, and the dean as president or prolocutor.
These were convened either upon more frequent and ordinary occasions, or
at more solemn seasons for the greater and more weighty affairs. Those
of the former sort were held at first every three weeks, in imitation of
the courts baron, which run generally in this form, from three weeks to
three weeks; but afterwards they were most commonly held once a month,
at the beginning of the month, and were for this reason called kalendæ,
or monthly meetings. But their most solemn and principal chapters were
assembled once a quarter, in which there was to be a more full house,
and matters of greater import were to be here alone transacted. All
rectors and vicars, or their capellanes, were bound to attend these
chapters, and to bring information of all irregularities committed in
their respective parishes. If the deans were by sickness or urgent
business detained from there appearing and presiding in such
convocations, they had power to constitute their subdeans or
vicegerents. The place of holding these chapters was at first in any one
church within the district where the minister of the place was to
_procure for_, that is, to entertain, the dean and his immediate
officers. But because, in parishes that were small and unfrequented,
there was no fit accommodation to be had for so great a concourse of
people, therefore, in a council at London, under Archbishop Stratford,
in the year 1342, it was ordained that such chapters should not be held
in any obscure village, but in the larger or more eminent
parishes.—_Kennedy._
And one special reason why they seemed to have been formed in this realm
after the manner of the courts baron is, because we find nothing of
rural chapters in the ancient canon law.—_Gibson._
In pursuance of which institution of holding rural chapters, and of the
office of rural deans in inspecting the manners of clergy and people,
and executing the bishop’s processes for the reformation thereof, we
find a constitution of Archbishop Peccham, by which it is required, that
_the priests, on every Sunday immediately following the holding of the
rural chapter, shall expound to the people the sentence of
excommunication_.
And in these chapters continually presided the rural deans, until that
Otho, the pope’s legate, required the archdeacons to be frequently
present at them; who being superior to the rural deans, did in effect
take the presidency out of their hands: insomuch that, in Edward the
First’s reign, John of Athon gives this account of it: “Rural chapters,”
says he, “at this day are holden by the archdeacon’s officials, and
_sometimes_ by the rural deans.” From which constitution of Otho we may
date the decay of rural chapters; not only as it was a discouragement to
the rural dean, whose peculiar care the holding of them had been; but
also, as it was natural for the archdeacon and his official to draw the
business that had been usually transacted there, to their own
visitation, or, as it is styled in a constitution of Archbishop Langton,
to their own chapter.—_Gibson._
And this office of inspecting and reporting the manners of the clergy
and people rendered the rural deans necessary attendants on the
episcopal synod or general visitation, which was held for the same end
of inspecting, in order to reformation. In which synods (or general
visitation of the whole diocese by the bishop) the rural deans were the
standing representatives of the rest of the clergy, and were there to
deliver information of abuses committed within their knowledge, and to
propose and consult the best methods of reformation. For the ancient
episcopal synods (which were commonly held once a year) were composed of
the bishop as president and the deans-cathedral or archipresbyters in
the name of their collegiate body of presbyters or priests, and the
archdeacons or deputies of the inferior order of deacons, and the urban
and rural deans in the name of the parish ministers within their
division; who were to have their expenses allowed to them according to
the time of their attendance, by those whom they represented, as the
practice obtained for the representatives of the people in the civil
synods or parliament. But this part of their duty, which related to the
information of scandals and offences, in progress of time devolved upon
the churchwardens; and their other office of being convened to sit as
members of provincial and episcopal synods, was transferred to two
proctors or representatives of the parochial clergy in every diocese to
assemble in convocation, where the cathedral deans and archdeacons still
keep their ancient right, whilst the rural deans have given place to an
election of two only for every diocese, instead of one by-standing place
for every deanery.—_Kennedy._
At the Reformation, in the “Reformatio Legum,” it was proposed to invest
rural deans with certain legal powers, but nothing was done in this
respect. In the provincial synod of convocation, held in London, April
3, 1571, it was ordained, that “the archdeacon, when he hath finished
his visitation, shall signify to the bishop what clergymen he hath found
in every deanery so well endowed with learning and judgment, as to be
worthy to instruct the people in sermons, and to rule and preside over
others; out of these the bishop may choose such as he will have to be
rural deans.”
But the office was not much used till of late years, when in most
dioceses it has been revived, and decanal chapters have in many places
been held with much apparent advantage.
In many foreign churches, archpresbyters, or provosts, seem to have
discharged much the same function as the rural deans. The title of
_Dean_ however, as employed in this case, is very common in Europe. In
most dioceses of Ireland the office has been immemorially operative.
RUTH, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament.
This book is a kind of appendix to the Book of Judges, and an
introduction to the Books of Samuel, and is therefore properly placed
between them. It has its title from the person whose story is here
principally related. The Jews make but one book of this and the Book of
Judges, and probably the same person was the author of both. It was
certainly written at a time when the government by judges had ceased,
since the author of it begins with observing, that the fact came to pass
in the days when the judges ruled: and he ends his book with a
genealogy, which he carries down to David. Probably it was composed in
that king’s time, before he was advanced to the throne.
The history recorded in this book, is that of Ruth, a Moabitish woman,
who, coming to Bethlehem, and being married to Boaz her kinsman, bare to
him Obed, who was the grandfather of David. In this story are observable
the ancient rights of kindred and redemption, and the manner of buying
the inheritance of the deceased; with other particulars of great note
and antiquity.
It is difficult to determine under what judge the history of Ruth
happened. Some place it in the government of Ehud or Shamgar; and others
about the beginning of the time when Eli judged Israel.
SABAOTH. A Hebrew word, signifying _hosts_ or _armies_. JEHOVAH SABAOTH
is the LORD of Hosts. “Holy, holy, holy, LORD GOD of Sabaoth.”
SABBATARIANS, are so called from their keeping the seventh day of the
week as the sabbath; whilst Christians in general keep the first day of
the week, or Sunday, in memory of our SAVIOUR’S having risen that day
from the dead. On the continent they are generally, but improperly,
called Israelites. It is uncertain when they first made their
appearance; but we learn from Fuller that there were Sabbatarians in
1633.
They object to the reasons which are generally alleged for keeping the
first day; and they insist that the change of the sabbath from the
seventh to the first day of the week, did not take place till the
beginning of the fourth century, when it was effected by the emperor
Constantine, on his conversion to Christianity. A summary of their
principles, as to this article of the sabbath, by which they stand
distinguished, is contained in the three following propositions:—1. That
GOD has required the observance of the seventh, or last, day of every
week, to be observed by mankind universally for the weekly sabbath. 2.
That this command of GOD is perpetually binding on man till time shall
be no more. And 3. That this sacred rest of the seventh day sabbath, is
not changed by Divine authority, from the seventh and last to the first
day of the week; or, that the Scripture nowhere requires the observance
of any other day of the week for the weekly sabbath, but the seventh day
only, which is still kept by the Jews, to whom the law on this subject
was given. These are much more consistent in their rejection of all the
subsidiary helps of antiquity in interpreting the Scriptures, than those
Protestants who observe the first day of the week with Judaical
strictness.
SABBATH, REST. Sabbath day, the day of rest. The sabbath day, strictly
speaking, is Saturday, the observance of which is not considered
obligatory by Christians. But the term is sometimes applied to the
LORD’S day, which is regarded as a feast by the Church universal. (See
_Lord’s Day_.)
SABELLIANS, were so called from Sabellius, a presbyter, or, according to
others, a bishop of Libya, who was the founder of the sect.
Sabellius flourished early in the third century, and his doctrine seems
to have had many followers for a short time. Its growth, however, was
soon checked by the opposition made to it by Dionysius, bishop of
Alexandria, and the sentence of condemnation pronounced upon its author
by Pope Dionysius, in a council held at Rome, A. D. 263.
Sabellius taught that there was but one person in the GODHEAD; and, in
confirmation of this doctrine, he made use of this comparison: as a man,
though composed of body and soul, is but one person, so GOD, though he
is FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST, is but one person. Hence the Sabellians
reduced the three persons in the TRINITY to three characters or
relations, and maintained that the WORD and HOLY SPIRIT are only
virtues, emanations, or functions of the Deity; that he who is in heaven
is the FATHER of all things; that he descended into the Virgin, became a
child, and was born of her as a son; and that, having accomplished the
mystery of our redemption, he diffused himself upon the apostles in
tongues of fire, and was then denominated the HOLY GHOST.
Between the system of Sabellianism and what is termed the _indwelling_
scheme, there appears to be a considerable resemblance, if it be not
precisely the same, differently explained. The indwelling scheme is
chiefly founded on a false and unauthorized sense of that passage in the
New Testament, where the apostle, speaking of CHRIST, says, “In him
dwelleth all the fulness of the GODHEAD bodily.” Dr. Watts, towards the
close of his life, introduced the Sabellian heresy, and wrote several
pieces in its defence. His sentiments on the TRINITY appear to have
been, that “the GODHEAD, the DEITY itself, personally distinguished as
the FATHER, was united to the man CHRIST JESUS, in consequence of which
union or indwelling of the GODHEAD he became properly GOD.” Mr. Palmer
observes that Dr. Watts conceived this union to have subsisted before
the SAVIOUR’S appearance in the flesh, and that the human soul of CHRIST
existed with the FATHER from before the foundation of the world; on
which ground he maintains the real descent of CHRIST from heaven to
earth, and the whole scene of his humiliation, which he thought
incompatible with the common opinion concerning him. Dr. Doddridge is
supposed to have entertained the same sentiments.
SACRAMENT. (See _Seven Sacraments_.) In classical writers, observes
Bishop Kaye, in his learned treatise on Tertullian, the word
_sacramentum_ means an oath or promise ratified by a sacred or religious
ceremony: thus, the oath taken by the military was called _sacramentum_.
In strict conformity with this, its original signification, it is used
to express the promise made by Christians in baptism. From the oath the
transition was easy to the ceremony by which it was ratified. Thus
_sacramentum_ came to signify any religious ordinance, and in general to
stand for that which in Greek is expressed by the word μυστήριον
(mystery), any emblematical notion of a sacred import, any external act
having an internal or secret meaning. If the word is understood in this
extended sense, the Romanists are clearly wrong in confining the title
to only seven rites or ordinances. The first who did this was probably
the celebrated Master of the Sentences [Peter Lombard, in the twelfth
century]. Certain it is that the number of seven sacraments was first
decreed by Eugenius in the fifteenth century, that the first provincial
council which confirmed the decree was one convened in the sixteenth
century, and that the first council, even pretending to be general, that
adopted it with an anathema was the Council of Trent.
This is, in fact, our dispute on this point with Rome. If the Romanists
take the word _sacrament_ in its enlarged sense, then they ought not to
confine it, as they do, to seven rites; if they take it in its strict
sense, then they ought to confine it to two, baptism and the supper of
the LORD. Taking the word in its general sense, the Church of England
directs the clergy to speak to the people of matrimony as a sacrament.
“By the like holy promise _the sacrament of matrimony_ knitteth man and
wife in perpetual love,” &c.—_Homily on Swearing_, part i. The Church of
England in this sense acknowledges other rites to be sacraments besides
baptism and the eucharist. (See below, the extract from the Homily, _Of
Common Prayer and Sacraments_.) This is a very important distinction:
“Let it be clearly understood,” says Bishop Jeremy Taylor, “it is none
of the doctrine of the Church of England that there are two sacraments
_only_, but that of those rituals commanded in Scripture, which
ecclesiastical use calls sacraments, by a word of art, two only _are
generally necessary to salvation_.”—_Taylor’s Dissuasive_, p. 240. In
like manner Archbishop Secker says, “As the word sacrament is not a
Scripture one, and hath at different times been differently understood,
our catechism doth not require it to be said absolutely that the
sacraments are _two only_, but _two only necessary to salvation_;
leaving persons at liberty to comprehend more things under the name if
they please, provided they insist not on the necessity of them, and of
dignifying them with this title.”—_Secker’s Lectures_, xxxv. _Of
Baptism_. It will be seen that this is in accordance with the answer in
the catechism to the question, How many sacraments has CHRIST ordained
in his Church? the answer being not simply _two_, but “two only as
generally necessary to salvation.”
We have said that the distinction is important, for it enables us to
take high ground on this doctrine. It is not by depressing the other
ordinances of the Church which Cranmer and Taylor call sacramentals, but
by placing baptism and the eucharist in their proper place and dignity,
that we best defend the English Church on this point. If, with the
latitudinarians, we depress the proper sacraments and make baptism a
mere ceremony, and the eucharist only a more solemn form of
self-dedication or worship, our controversy becomes a childish dispute
about words. Not so if we distinguish, with the Church of England,
baptism and the eucharist from all other ordinances, because they are,
what the others are not, necessary for salvation to all men, wherever
they can be had. Other ordinances may confer grace, but baptism and the
eucharist alone unite with CHRIST himself. “By baptism we receive CHRIST
JESUS, and from him the saving grace which is proper to baptism; by the
eucharist we receive him also imparting therein himself, and that grace
which the eucharist properly bestows.” Again; baptism and the eucharist
are what none of the other ordinances are, federal rites, the one for
initiating, the other for renewing the covenant of grace, instituted for
a reciprocal communion between GOD and man, of blessings on the one part
and duty on the other; they are not merely a means to an end, but they
are actually a part of our moral and Christian holiness, piety, and
perfection; “as much a part of virtue,” says Dr. Waterland, “as the
performance of any moral duty is, as much as feeding the hungry,
clothing the naked,” &c.
From what has been said it will be seen,
1. That, in the large acceptation of the word sacrament, there are many
more sacraments than seven.
2. That, in the strict definition of the word, there are only two,
baptism and the eucharist.
But we may sum up the whole in the words which the Church of England
uses in one of the homilies: “You shall hear how many sacraments there
be, that were instituted by our SAVIOUR CHRIST, and are to be continued,
and received of every Christian in due time and order, and for such
purpose as our SAVIOUR CHRIST willed them to be received. And as for the
number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact
signification of a sacrament, namely, for visible signs, expressly
commanded in the New Testament, _whereunto is annexed the promise of
forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness, and joining in_ CHRIST,
there be but two, namely, baptism and the supper of the LORD. For,
_although absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin_, yet by the
express word of the New Testament it hath not this promise annexed and
tied to the visible sign, which is imposition of hands. For this visible
sign (I mean laying on of hands) is not expressly commanded in the New
Testament to be used in absolution, as the visible sign in baptism and
the LORD’S supper are; and therefore absolution is no _such_ sacrament
as baptism and the communion are. And though the ordering of ministers
hath this visible sign and promise, yet it lacks the promise of
remission of sin as all other sacraments besides the two above-named do.
Therefore neither it, nor any other sacrament else, be such sacraments
as baptism and the communion are. _But in a general acceptation, the
name of a sacrament may be attributed to anything; whereby an holy thing
is signified._ In which understanding of the word, the ancient writers
have given this name, not only to the other five, commonly of late years
taken and used for supplying the number of the seven sacraments, but
also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet,
and such like, not meaning thereby to repute them as sacraments, in the
same signification that the two forenamed sacraments are. And therefore
St. Augustine, weighing the true signification and exact meaning of the
word, writing to Januarius, and also in the third book of Christian
doctrine, affirmeth, that the sacraments of the Christians, as they are
most excellent in signification, so are they most few in number, and in
both places maketh mention expressly of two, the sacrament of baptism
and the supper of the LORD. And although there are retained by order of
the Church of England, besides these two, certain other rites and
ceremonies about the institution of ministers in the Church, matrimony,
confirmation of children, by examining them of their knowledge in the
articles of the faith, and joining thereto the prayers of the Church for
them, and likewise for the visitation of the sick; yet no man ought to
take these for sacraments in _such signification and meaning_ as the
sacraments of baptism and the LORD’S supper are.”—_Homily of Common
Prayer and Sacraments._
A sacrament is defined in the catechism, in the strict sense, as “an
outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us,
ordained by CHRIST himself as a means whereby we receive the same, and a
pledge to assure us thereof.”
1. There must be an outward and visible sign, the solemn application of
some bodily and sensible thing or action to a meaning and purpose which
in its own nature it hath not. In common life, we have many other signs
to express our meanings, on occasions of great consequence, besides
words. And no wonder then if, in religion, we have some of the same
kind.
2. In a sacrament, the outward and visible sign must denote “an inward
and spiritual grace given unto us;” that is, some favour freely bestowed
on us from heaven, by which our inward and spiritual condition, the
state of our souls, is made better. Most of the significative actions
that we use in religion express only our duty to GOD. Thus, kneeling in
prayer is used to show our reverence towards him to whom we pray. And
signing a child with the cross, after it is baptized, declares our
obligation not to be ashamed of the cross of CHRIST. But a sacrament,
besides expressing on our part duty to GOD, expresses on his part some
grace or favour towards us.
3. In order to entitle anything to the name of sacrament, a further
requisite is, that it be “ordained by CHRIST himself.” We may indeed
use, on the foot of human authority alone, actions that set forth either
our sense of any duty, or our belief in GOD’S grace. For it is certainly
as lawful to express a good meaning by any other proper sign as by
words. But then, such marks as these, which we commonly call ceremonies,
as they are taken up at pleasure, may be laid aside again at pleasure;
and ought to be laid aside whenever they grow too numerous, or abuses
are made of them which cannot easily be reformed; and this hath
frequently been the case. But sacraments are of perpetual obligation,
for they stand on the authority of CHRIST, who hath certainly appointed
nothing to be for ever observed in his Church but what he saw would be
for ever useful.
Nor doth every appointment of CHRIST, though it be of perpetual
obligation, deserve the name of a sacrament, but those, and no other,
which are, 4. Not only signs of grace, but means also, whereby we
receive the same. None but our blessed LORD could appoint such means;
and which of his ordinances should be such, and which not, none but
himself could determine. From his word, therefore, we are to learn it;
and then, as we hope to attain the end, we must use the means. But when
it is said that the sacraments are means of grace, we are not to
understand either that the performance of the mere outward action doth,
by its own virtue, produce a spiritual effect in us, or that GOD hath
annexed any such effect to that alone; but that he will accompany the
action with his blessing, provided it be done as it ought, with those
qualifications which he requires. And therefore, unless we fulfil the
condition, we must not expect the benefit.
Further, calling the sacraments means of grace, doth not signify them to
be means by which we merit grace; for nothing but the sufferings of our
blessed SAVIOUR can do that for us; but means by which what he hath
merited is conveyed to us.
Nor yet are they the only means of conveying grace; for reading, and
hearing, and meditating upon the word of GOD, are part of the things
which he hath appointed for this end; and prayer is another part,
accompanied with an express promise, that, if we “ask, we shall
receive.” (John xvi. 24.) But these, not being such actions as figure
out and represent the benefits which they derive to us, though they are
means of grace, are not signs of it, and therefore do not come under the
notion of sacraments.
But, 5. A sacrament is not only a sign or representation of some
heavenly favour, and a means whereby we receive it, but also “a pledge
to assure us thereof.” Not that anything can give us a greater
assurance, in point of reason, of any blessing from GOD, than his bare
promise can do; but that such observances, appointed in token of his
promises, affect our imaginations with a stronger sense of them, and
make a deeper and more lasting, and therefore more useful, impression on
our minds. For this cause, in all nations of the world, representations
by action have ever been used, as well as words, upon solemn occasions;
especially upon entering into and renewing treaties and covenants with
each other. And therefore, in condescension to a practice which, being
so universal among men, appears to be founded in the nature of man, GOD
hath graciously added to his covenant also the solemnity of certain
outward instructive performances, by which he declares to us, that, as
surely as our bodies are washed by water, and nourished by bread broken
and wine poured forth and received, so surely are our souls purified
from sin by the baptism of repentance, and strengthened in all goodness
by partaking of that mercy which the wounding of the body of CHRIST and
the shedding of his blood hath obtained for us. And thus these religious
actions, so far as they are performed by GOD’S minister, in pursuance of
his appointment, are an earnest or pledge on his part, which was one
ancient signification of the word sacrament; and, so far as we join in
them, they are an obligation, binding like an oath on our part, which
was the other primitive meaning of the word.—_Abp. Secker._
SACRAMENTALS. (See _Sacrament_.) A name conveniently given to those
rites which are of a sacramental character,—such as confirmation and
matrimony,—but are not sacraments in the proper and strict sense, as
baptism and the holy eucharist.
SACRAMENTARY. In the Romish Church, a book containing the collects,
together with the _canon_, i. e. that part of the Communion Office which
is invariable, whatever changes might occur in the other portions of the
service.
SACRIFICE. (See _Mass, the Sacrifice of_.) An offering made to GOD. In
strictness of speech, there has been but one sacrifice, once offered,
and never to be repeated, the sacrifice of the death of our LORD JESUS
CHRIST. He suffered death upon the cross for our redemption, and there,
by the one oblation of himself, once offered, a full, perfect, and
sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the
whole world, was once made, and once for all. (See _Covenant of
Redemption_.) But, figuratively speaking, all Divine worship was
anciently called a sacrifice—a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; but
more especially has this term been applied to the celebration of the
eucharist. Justin Martyr, says Dr. Waterland, is the first we meet with
who speaks of the eucharist under the name of sacrifice or sacrifices.
But he does it so often, and so familiarly, that one cannot but conceive
that it had been in common use for some time before; and it is the more
likely to have been so, because oblation (which is near akin to it)
certainly was.
Irenæus, of the same [the second] century, mentions the sacrifice of the
eucharist more than once, either directly or obliquely. Tertullian, not
many years later, does the like. Cyprian also speaks of the sacrifice in
the eucharist, understanding it in one particular passage of the
lay-oblation. This is not the place to examine critically what the
ancients meant by the sacrifice or sacrifices of the eucharist. But, as
_oblation_ anciently was understood sometimes of the lay-offering, the
same may be observed of _sacrifice_; and it is plain from Cyprian.
Besides that notion of sacrifice, there was another, and a principal
one, which was conceived to go along with the eucharistical service, and
that was the notion of _spiritual_ sacrifice, consisting of many
particulars, and it was on the account of one, or both, that the
eucharist had the name of sacrifice for the two first centuries. But by
the middle of the third century, if not sooner, it began to be called a
sacrifice, on account of the grand sacrifice represented and
commemorated in it; the sign, as such, now adopting the name of the
thing signified. In short, the memorial at length came to be called a
sacrifice, as well as an oblation: and it had a double claim to be so
called; partly as it was in itself a spiritual service or sacrifice, and
partly as it was a representation and commemoration of the high
tremendous sacrifice of CHRIST GOD-MAN. This last view of it, being of
all the most awful and most endearing, came by degrees to be the most
prevailing acceptation of the Christian sacrifice, as held forth in the
eucharist. But those who styled the eucharist a sacrifice on that
account took care, as often as need was, to explain it off to a memorial
of a sacrifice, rather than a strict or proper sacrifice, in that
precise view. Cyprian is the first who plainly and directly styles the
eucharist a sacrifice in the commemorative view, and as representing the
grand sacrifice. Not that there was anything new in the doctrine, but
there was a new application of an old name, which had at the first been
brought in upon other accounts.—_Waterland._
Bishop Burnet remarks, that Christian writers called the eucharist an
_unbloody sacrifice_, as being a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving;
and adds, “In two other respects it may be also more strictly called a
sacrifice: one is, because there is an oblation of bread and wine made
in it, which being sanctified, are consumed in an act of religion: to
this many passages in the writings of the Fathers do relate. Another
respect in which the eucharist is called a sacrifice is, because it is a
commemoration and a representation to GOD, of the sacrifice that CHRIST
offered for us on the cross; in which we lay claim to that as to our
expiation, and feast upon it as our peace-offering, according to that
ancient notion, that covenants were by a sacrifice, and were concluded
in a feast on the sacrifice. Upon these accounts we do not deny, but
that the eucharist may be well called a sacrifice; but still it is a
commemorative sacrifice, and not propitiatory,” &c.—_Burnet._
The ancients, says Bishop Cosin, called the whole communion “the
sacrifice of praise,” as our Church doth: whereas the Romanists only
call it a sacrifice, without any other addition. But it is not the
sacrifice of CHRIST which we here speak of; for that is always pleasing
to GOD, and was absolutely perfect: but it is our own peace-offering, in
commemoration thereof, in which there have been many failings, and
therefore we desire and beg that it may be accepted in mercy.—_Dean
Comber._ In this regard, and in divers others also, the eucharist may,
by allusion and analogy, be fitly called “a sacrifice,” and the LORD’S
table “an altar;” the one relating to the other, though neither of them
can be strictly and properly so termed. It is the custom of Scripture to
describe the service of GOD under the New Testament, be it either
internal or external, by the terms which otherwise belonged to the Old:
as, immolation, offering, sacrifice, and altar. So the evangelical
prophet Isaiah, foretelling the glory and amplitude of the Christian
Church, speaketh of GOD’S altar which shall be there, upon which “an
acceptable offering shall be made.” (See also Rom. xv. 16; Phil. ii. 17;
Heb. xiii. 10.) And indeed the sacrament of the eucharist carries the
name of a sacrifice, and the table, whereon it is celebrated, an altar
of oblation, in a far higher sense than any of their former sacrifices
did, which were but the types and figures of those services that are
performed in recognition and memory of CHRIST’S one sacrifice, once
offered upon the altar of his cross. The prophecy of Malachi concerning
the Church under the New Testament, (see Mal. i. 10,) applied by the
doctors of the Roman Church to their proper sacrifice, as they call it,
of the mass, is interpreted and applied by the ancient Fathers,
sometimes in general to all the acts of our Christian religion, and
sometimes in particular to the eucharist: that is, the act of our
prayers and thanksgiving for the sacrifice of CHRIST once made for us
upon the cross, as here we use in the Church of England. The Church of
England therefore herein followeth the Holy Scripture and the ancient
Fathers. (See also Heb. xiii. 16; Rev. viii 3; Ps. cxli. 2.)—_Bp.
Cosin._
Under which name of the Christian sacrifice, says Joseph Mede, first
know, that the ancient Church understood not, as many suppose, the mere
sacrament of the body and blood of CHRIST, but the whole sacred action
or solemn service of the Church assembled, whereof this sacred mystery
was then a prime and principal part, and, as it were, the pearl or jewel
of this ring, no public service of the Church being without it. This
observed and remembered, I define the Christian sacrifice, _ex mente
antiquæ ecclesiæ_, in this manner: An oblation of thanksgiving and
prayer to GOD the FATHER through JESUS CHRIST, and his sacrifice
commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine, wherewith GOD had first
been agnized. So that this sacrifice, as you see, hath a double object,
or matter; first, praise and prayer, which you may call _sacrificium
quod_. Secondly, the commemoration CHRIST’S sacrifice on the cross,
which is _sacrificium quo_, the sacrifice whereby the other is accepted.
For all the prayers, thanksgivings, and devotions of a Christian are
tendered up unto GOD in the name of JESUS CHRIST crucified. According
whereunto we are wont to conclude our prayers with “through JESUS CHRIST
our LORD.” And this is the specification, whereby the worship of a
Christian is distinguished from that of the Jew. Now that which we, in
all our prayers and thanksgivings, do vocally, when we say _per Iesum
Christum Dominum nostrum_, the ancient Church, in her public and solemn
service, did visibly by representing him, according as he commanded, in
the symbols of his body and blood: for there he is commemorated and
received by us for the same end for which he was given and suffered for
us; that through him, we receiving forgiveness of our sins, GOD our
FATHER might accept our service and hear our prayers we make unto him.
What time then so fit and seasonable to commend our devotions unto GOD,
as when the LAMB of GOD lies slain upon the holy table, and we receive
visibly, though mystically, those gracious pledges of his blessed body
and blood. This was that sacrifice of the ancient Church, which the
Fathers so much ring in our ears. The sacrifice of praise and prayer
through JESUS CHRIST, mystically represented in the creatures of bread
and wine.
But yet there is one thing more my definition intimates, when I say,
“through the sacrifice of JESUS CHRIST, commemorated in the creatures of
bread and wine, wherewith GOD had first been agnized.” The body and
blood of CHRIST were not made of common bread and common wine, but of
bread and wine first sanctified by being offered and set before GOD as a
present, to agnize him the LORD and giver of all: according to that,
_Domini est terra et plenitudo ejus_: and “let no man appear before the
LORD empty.” Therefore, as this sacrifice consisted of two parts, as I
told you, of praise and prayer, which, in respect of the other, I call
_sacrificium quod_; and of the commemoration of CHRIST crucified, which
I call _sacrificium quo_; so the symbols of bread and wine traversed
both, being first presented as symbols of praise and thanksgiving to
agnize GOD the LORD of the creature in the _sacrificium quod_; then, by
invocation of the HOLY GHOST, made the symbols of the body and blood of
CHRIST in the _sacrificium quo_. So that the whole service throughout
consisted of a reasonable part and of a material part, as of a soul and
a body; of which I shall speak more fully hereafter, when I come to
prove this, I have said, by the testimonies of the ancients.
Again, the LORD’S supper is a sacrifice, according to the style of the
ancient Church.
It is one thing to say, that the LORD’S supper is a sacrifice, and
another to say, that CHRIST is properly sacrificed therein. These are
not the same; for there may be a sacrifice, which is a representation of
another, and yet a sacrifice too: and such is this of the New Testament,
a sacrifice wherein another sacrifice, that of CHRIST’S death upon the
cross, is commemorated: thus the Papists gain nothing by this notion of
antiquity, and our asserting the same; for their tenet is, that CHRIST
in this sacrifice is really and properly sacrificed, which we shall show
in due time that the ancients never meant.
To begin with this: as in the Old Testament the name of sacrifice was
otherwhile given to the whole action in which the rite was used;
sometimes to the rite alone; so in the notion and language of the
ancient Church, sometimes the whole action of Christian service (wherein
the LORD’S supper was a part) is comprehended under that name; sometimes
the rite of the sacred supper itself is so termed, and truly, as you
shall now hear.
The resolution of this point depends altogether upon the true definition
of a sacrifice, as it is distinguished from all other offerings. Which,
though it be so necessary, that all disputation without it is vain, yet
shall we not find, that either party interested in this question hath
been so exact therein as were to be wished. This appears by the
differing definitions, given and confuted by divines on both sides; the
reason of which defect is, because neither are deduced from the notion
of Scripture, but built upon other conceptions: let us see, therefore,
if it may be learned out of Scripture, what that is which the Scripture,
in a strict and special sense, calls a sacrifice.
Every sacrifice is an oblation or offering: but every offering is not a
sacrifice, in that strict and proper acceptation we seek. For tithes,
first-fruits, heave-offerings in the law, and whatsoever indeed is
consecrated unto GOD, are oblations or offerings; but none of them
sacrifices, nor ever so called in the Old Testament. What offerings are
then called so? I answer, burnt-offerings, sin-offerings,
trespass-offerings, and peace-offerings. These, and no other, are called
by that name.
Out of these, therefore, must we pick the true and proper ratio of a
sacrifice: it is true, indeed, that these sacrifices were offerings of
beasts, of beeves, of sheep, of goats, of fowls: but the ratio of
anything consists not in the matter thereof; as the gowns we wear are
still the same kind of apparel, though made of differing stuffs; these
sacrifices also were slain, and offered by fire and incense: but neither
is the modus of anything the ratio or essential form thereof. That
therefore may have the nature and formale of a sacrifice which consists
of another matter, and is offered after another and differing manner:
those we call sacraments of the Old Testament, circumcision and the
passover, were by effusion of blood; ours are not, and yet we esteem
them nevertheless true sacraments; and so it may be here.
To hold you, therefore, no longer in suspense, a sacrifice, I think,
should be defined thus: an offering, whereby the offerer is made
partaker of his GOD’S table, in token of covenant and friendship with
him, &c.: more explicately thus: an offering unto the Divine Majesty, of
that which is given for the food of man; that the offerer, partaking
thereof, might, as by way of pledge, be certified of his acceptation
into covenant, and fellowship with his GOD, by eating and drinking at
his table. St. Augustine comes toward this notion, when he defines a
sacrifice (though in a larger sense) _opus quod Deo nuncupamus,
reddimus, et dedicamus, hoc fine, ut sanctâ societate ipsi adhæreamus_:
for to have society and fellowship with GOD, what is it else but to be
in league and covenant with him?
In a word, a sacrifice is _oblatio fæderalis_.—_Joseph Mede._
SACRIFICATI. Christians who, to avoid condemnation before a heathen
tribunal, offered sacrifice to an idol. When such persons, after the
persecution was over, returned to the profession of CHRIST, they were
obliged to undergo a very rigid penance before they could be re-admitted
into the Church. It must be observed that _Sacrificati_ is their
denomination as penitents, after their return to the faith. Those who
continued in idolatry were simply apostates. (See _Libellatici_ and
_Thurificati_.)
SACRILEGE. The act of violating sacred things, or subjecting them to
profanation; or the desecration of objects consecrated to GOD. Thus the
robbing of churches or of graves, the abuse of sacred vessels and
altars, by employing them for unhallowed purposes, the plundering and
misappropriation of alms and donations, &c., are acts of sacrilege
which, in the ancient Church, were punished with great severity.
SACRISTAN. The person to whose charge the sacred vestments, &c., in a
church, are committed; now corrupted to _sexton_, which see. The
sacristan is a dignitary in some foreign cathedrals, as was formerly
the case at Glasgow, and the Chapel Royal of Stirling, in Scotland; in
both of which places there were treasurers also. In most of the old
cathedrals, however, the sacrist was the treasurer’s deputy, and a
vicar choral. In those of the new foundation the sacrist is a minor
canon, and has often the special cure of souls within the precinct. In
Ireland the sacrist at Elphin was a dignitary, now usually styled
_Treasurer_.—_Jebb._
SACRISTY. The place in which sacred vestments, &c. are kept, answering
to the modern vestry.
SADDUCEES. A famous sect among the Jews; so called, it is said, from
their founder, Sadoc. It began in the time of Antigonus, of Socho,
president of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and teacher of the law in the
principal divinity school of that city. Antigonus, having often in his
lectures inculcated to his scholars that they ought not to serve GOD in
a servile manner, but only out of filial love and fear, two of his
scholars, Sadoc and Baithus, thence inferred that there were no rewards
at all after this life; and, therefore, separating from the school of
their master, they thought there was no resurrection nor future state,
neither angel nor spirit. (Matt. xxii. 23; Acts xxiii. 8.) They seem to
agree greatly with the Epicureans; differing however in this, that
though they denied a future state, yet they allowed the power of GOD to
create the world; whereas the followers of Epicurus denied it. It is
said, also, that they rejected the Bible, except the Pentateuch; denied
predestination, and taught that GOD had made man absolute master of all
his actions, without assistance to good, or restraint from evil.
SAINT. (See _Communion of Saints_, _Invocation of Saints_.) A person
either in the flesh or out of it, who is made holy by the indwelling of
the HOLY SPIRIT. The apostles in their Epistles use this word simply for
baptized believers, that is, for all Christians.
The word _saints_ is of the same meaning with the word _holy_; and,
therefore, comprehends all Christians in the same manner as has been
already explained. Having _communion_, is being entitled to partake of
benefits and kindnesses, and bound to make suitable returns for them.
And thus Christians, or saints, have communion or “fellowship” with “the
FATHER, from whom cometh down every good and perfect gift;” with his SON
JESUS CHRIST, (1 John i. 3; James i. 17,) through whom forgiveness and
mercy is conveyed to us; with the HOLY GHOST, whose sanctifying graces
are conferred on such as duly qualify their hearts for the reception of
them. And for these blessings we owe all thankfulness and all duty, in
thought, word, and deed. Christians have also communion with the holy
angels, as these “are ministering spirits sent forth to minister for
them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. i. 14): and undoubtedly we
ought to think of what they do for us, with an inward sense of gratitude
and love. But, as we are unacquainted with particulars, we can make no
particular acknowledgments: nor ought we to make any general ones, by
outward expressions of respect; since “worshipping GOD alone” is
commanded, (Matt. iv. 10,) and worshipping angels condemned, in
Scripture. (Col. ii. 18.)
With respect to those of our own nature, we are bound so far to hold
communion even with the worst of unbelievers, as not only to do them
every kind of justice, but sincerely to wish, and, if occasion offer,
heartily endeavour, their good, both in body and soul. But to all “who
have obtained the like precious faith with ourselves,” (2 Pet. i. 1,) we
bear a still nearer relation; as being, in a peculiar sense, children of
the same Father, disciples of the same Master, animated by the same
Spirit, members of the same body. And these things oblige us to the
utmost care of preserving, by prudent order and mutual forbearance, as
much unity in the Church as we possibly can.
Such, indeed, as obstinately deny the fundamental doctrines, or
transgress the fundamental precepts of Christianity, ought to be
rejected from Christian communion. But to renounce communicating with
any others, who are willing to admit us to it on lawful terms, is the
way to cut off ourselves, not them, from the body of CHRIST; who yet, we
doubt not, will allow those on both sides to belong to his Church, who,
through pardonable passions or mistakes, will not allow one another to
do so.
And, as we should maintain communion with all proper persons, we should
show our disposition to it in all proper ways: attend on the public
instructions, join in the public worship, sacraments, and discipline,
which our LORD hath appointed, and keep the whole of them pure from all
forbidden or suspicious alterations or mixtures; avoid, with great care,
both giving and taking needless offence, in respect to these or any
matters; and by all fit means “edify one another in love” (Rom. xiv. 19;
Eph. iv. 16): “obeying those who are set over us;” condescending to
those who are beneath us; esteeming and honouring the wise and virtuous;
teaching and admonishing the ignorant and faulty; bearing with the weak,
relieving the poor, and comforting the afflicted.
Nor have we _communion_ only with the _saints_ on earth, but are of one
city and one family with such as are already got safe to heaven.
Doubtless, they exercise that _communion_ towards us by loving and
praying for the brethren whom they have left behind them. And we are to
exercise it towards them, not by addressing petitions to them, which we
are neither authorized to offer, nor have any grounds to think they can
hear; but by rejoicing in their happiness; thanking GOD for the grace
which he hath bestowed on them, and the examples which they have left
us; holding their memories in honour, imitating their virtues, and
beseeching the Disposer of all things, that, having followed them in
holiness here, we may meet them in happiness hereafter; and become, in
the fullest sense, “fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the
household of GOD” (Eph. ii. 19); “having, with all those that are
departed in the true faith of his holy name, our perfect consummation
and bliss, both in body and soul, in his eternal and everlasting glory,
through JESUS CHRIST our LORD, Amen.” (See _Burial Office_.)—_Abp.
Secker._
SAINTS’ DAYS. (See _Feasts_.) Two of the most ancient monuments of
ecclesiastical history that we possess, except the New Testament, are
the accounts of the martyrdom of Ignatius and Polycarp, both disciples
of St. John, written, at the time of their suffering, by the Churches of
Antioch and Smyrna, of which they were bishops: and in those they
mention, as of course, their purpose of celebrating yearly the festival
of their birthdays, of their entrance into a better life, for the
commemoration of their excellent graces, and the incitement of others to
imitate them. Thus did they provide that the “righteous should be in
everlasting remembrance,” (Ps. cxii. 6,) and observed the more
particular direction given to that intent in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
“Remember them which have (had) the rule over you, who have spoken unto
you the word of GOD; whose faith follow, considering the end,” the
event, “of their conversation.” (Heb. xiii. 7.) The rest of the
primitive Churches appear to have followed the same rule; and each to
have honoured the more eminent of their own martyrs, who had been
usually their teachers also, by anniversary assemblies for preserving
the reverence due to their characters, and offering up thanks to GOD for
their examples.
But the increase of their numbers, and the adoption of the sufferers of
one Church into the liturgies of another, and the admission of eminently
good persons, who had “not resisted unto blood,” (Heb. xii. 4,) and the
frequent grants which in subsequent ages were made, of so high a
distinction, with little care of previous inquiry, multiplied the
returns of these solemnities very improperly and inconveniently. Then,
besides, a still greater evil was, that praises and panegyrics too soon
grew to be immoderate, and afterwards impious. In the vehemence of
national encomiums and exclamations, the saint was called upon as
present, until at length he was thought so; and what at first was merely
a bold and moving figure of speech, became at length in good earnest a
prayer: which requested of a dead man, who was not able to hear it, not
only that he would intercede with GOD on behalf of his fellow-servants,
but that he would himself bestow such blessings upon them, as no
creature hath in his power. Things being found in this condition at the
Reformation, it was necessary both to abolish entirely these unlawful
addresses, and to limit the original sort of commemorations to a
moderate list of persons, indisputably worthy of them. Accordingly no
day is appointed by our Church for the celebration of any other than the
principal saints mentioned in the New Testament, it being hard to stop,
if more were added. And amongst these, St. Stephen is the only one who
stands solely on the foot of being a martyr; as indeed it was fit that
the foremost, the leader, of that “noble army” should be distinguished,
and chosen, as it were, to represent the rest.—_Abp. Secker._
When a Sunday and a saint’s day coincide, on the question what service
shall be used, see the extracts from Shepherd and Bishop Cosin in the
article _Lessons_.
SALUTATION. Having all repeated our creed together, and thereby given
good proof that we are members of the Catholic Church, and such as have
a right to join in the prayers thereof, we now prepare ourselves to
pray. And since salutations have ever been the expressions and badges of
that mutual charity, without which we are not fit to pray, therefore we
begin with an ancient form of salutation, taken out of Holy Scripture:
the minister commencing, salutes the people with “The LORD be with you,”
(Ruth ii. 4; Ps. cxxii. 8; 2 Thess. iii. 16,) and they return it with a
like prayer, “And with thy spirit,” (2 Tim. iv. 22,) which words have
been of early use in the Christian liturgies; and indeed the phrase is
the very words of St. Paul; and St. John forbids us to say to any
heretic “GOD speed.” (2 John, ver. 10, 11.) But when the minister hath
heard every one in the congregation repeat his faith, and seen, by their
standing up at it, a testimony of their assent to it, he can now safely
salute them all as brethren and members of the true Church; and surely,
as difference in religion creates great animosities, so agreement in one
faith is an excellent means to beget charity, and to make minister and
people heartily pray for one another: the people are going to pray,
which they cannot do without GOD’S help, and therefore the minister
prays that “the LORD may be with them,” to assist them in the duty,
according to that gracious promise of our SAVIOUR, that when two or
three are met to pray, he will be with them. (Matt, xviii. 20.) And
since the minister prays for all the people, and is their mouth to GOD,
they desire he may, heartily and devoutly, offer up these prayers in
their behalf, saying, “The LORD be with thy spirit.”—_Dean Comber._
By a man’s spirit in Scripture phrase is frequently meant the man
himself. So that the people do in reality answer thus: May GOD be with
thee, as thou desirest he may be with us, in the oblation of our joint
prayers. In this sense the word is used in the place whence this form is
borrowed. (2 Tim. iv. 22.)—_Dr. Bennet._
Till every person has finished the repetition of the creed, and there is
silence in the whole congregation, the minister should not pronounce the
words, “The LORD be with you.” These words ought also to be pronounced
by the minister in a standing posture, they being addressed to the
people. And after the people have returned their answer, the minister
should still stand and pronounce these words, “Let us pray;” and then
give the people time enough to kneel down, that there may not be the
least noise, and every person may be perfectly composed, and ready to
join, when the minister begins the prayers.
And because these words, “The LORD be with you,” and the reply of the
people, “And with thy spirit;” and those also, “Let us pray,” are all of
them directed and spoken, not to Almighty GOD, but only to men; namely,
by the minister and people alternately to each other; therefore care
should be taken that a difference be made in the tone of voice between
these short forms of mutual compellation, and the prayers
themselves.—_Dr. Bennet._
In the Romish Church the _angelical salutation_, as they call it,
consists of the angel’s salutation, and that of Elizabeth. It runs thus:
_Ave Maria, gratiæ plena: Dominus tecum: benedicta tu in mulieribus, et
benedictus fructus ventris tui. Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis
peccatoribus, nunc et in horâ mortis nostræ. Amen._
The latter clause, _Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis
peccatoribus_, was added, they tell us, in the fifth century; but the
last words, _nunc et in horâ mortis nostræ_, were inserted by order of
Pope Pius V.
Urban II. ordered a bell to be tolled three times a day to put the
people in mind of repeating this salutation, that GOD might prosper the
Christian arms in the recovery of the Holy Land; which custom, having
continued about 134 years, fell at length into neglect; till Gregory IX.
revived it, with the addition of a constant noon-bell.
The repeating of this salutation at the beginning of the sermon was
first enjoined by St. Dominic, or, as some will have it, by Vincent
Ferrerius. (See _Idolatry_ and _Mariolatry_.)
SALVATION (see _Covenant of Redemption_) is taken in Scripture, 1. For
deliverance or victory over outward dangers and enemies. (Exod. xiv. 13;
1 Sam. xiv. 45.) 2. For remission of sins, true faith, repentance, and
obedience, and other saving graces of the SPIRIT, which are the way to
salvation. (Luke xix. 9.) “This day is salvation come to this house.” 3.
For eternal happiness hereafter, which is the object of our hopes and
desires. Thus it is said, “to give knowledge of salvation to his
people.” (Luke i. 77.) “Godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation.”
(2 Cor. vii. 10.) And the gospel is called, the “gospel of salvation,”
(Eph. i. 13,) because it brings the good news that salvation is to be
had; it offers salvation to lost sinners; it shows upon what terms it
may be had, and the way how to attain it; it also fits for salvation,
and at last brings to it. 4. For the author of salvation. (Ps. xxvii.
1.) “The LORD is my light and my salvation,” he is my counsellor in all
my difficulties, and my comforter and deliverer in all my distresses. 5.
For the person who is the SAVIOUR of sinners. (Luke ii. 30.) “Mine eyes
have seen thy salvation,” says Simeon; I have seen him whom thou hast
sent into the world, to be the author and procurer of salvation to lost
sinners. 6. For the praise and benediction that is given to GOD. (Rev.
xix. 1.) “Alleluia, salvation and glory and honour and power unto the
LORD our GOD.” The Hebrews but rarely made use of concrete terms as they
are called; but often of abstracted. Thus, instead of saying, GOD saves
men, and protects them, they say, that GOD is their salvation. Thus the
word of salvation, the joy of salvation, the rock of salvation, the
shield of salvation, the horn of salvation, &c., is as much as to say,
The word that declares deliverance; the joys that attend the escaping a
great danger; a rock where any one takes refuge, and where he may be in
safety from his enemy; a buckler, that secures him from the arm of the
enemy; a horn or ray of light, of happiness and salvation, &c.—_Cruden’s
Concord._
SAMARITANS. These were a mixed people, inhabiting the parts of Palestine
between Galilee and Judea. They were in part descended from the remnant
of the ten tribes, most of whom had been carried away by the Assyrians,
blended with other distant nations, and settled in the same district
with their conquerors. These different people, Babylonians, Cutheans,
and other idolaters, for some time retained their respective forms of
worship; but finding the country ravaged by wild beasts, they thought to
propitiate the god of the country by restoring his worship; and one of
the priests, whom they had carried away from Samaria, came and “dwelt at
Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the LORD.” (2 Kings xvii.
28.) After this, they were delivered from the plague of wild beasts, and
embraced the law of Moses, with which they mixed a great part of their
ancient idolatry. Upon the return of the Jews from the Babylonish
captivity, it appears that they had entirely quitted the worship of
their idols. But though they were united in religion, they were not so
in affection, with the Jews; for they employed various calumnies and
stratagems to hinder their rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem; and when
they could not prevail; they erected a temple on Mount Gerizim, in
opposition to that of Jerusalem. (Ezra iv., v., vi.) The Samaritans at
present are few in number, but pretend to great strictness in their
observation of the law of Moses. They are said to be scattered, some at
Damascus, some at Gaza, and some at Grand Cairo in Egypt.
SAMUEL, THE BOOKS OF. Two canonical books of the Old Testament, so
called, because they are usually ascribed to the prophet Samuel.
These two books are styled _Reigns_ in the Greek version, and in the
vulgar Latin, _Kings_; but in the Hebrew they are styled the Books of
Samuel. But, since the first twenty-four chapters contain all that
relates to the history of Samuel, and that the latter part of the First
Book, and all the Second, include the relation of events that happened
after the death of that prophet, it has been supposed that Samuel was
author only of the first twenty-four chapters, and that the prophets Gad
and Nathan finished the work. This is the opinion of the Talmudists,
founded upon the following text of the Chronicles: “Now the acts of
David, first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel the
seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the
seer.”
The Books of Samuel and the Books of Kings are a continued history of
the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah; for which reason, the Books
of Samuel are likewise styled the First and Second Books of Kings; and
the two Books of Kings are also called the Third and Fourth Books of
Kings.