The great care and concern of the primitive Christians, in the religious

observation of the LORD’S day, appears, first, from their constant

attendance upon all the solemnities of public worship, from which

nothing but sickness, imprisonment, banishment, or some great necessity,

could detain them: secondly, from their zeal in frequenting religious

assemblies on this day, even in times of the hottest persecution, when

they were often beset and seized in their meetings and congregations:

thirdly, from their studious observation of the vigils, or nocturnal

assemblies, that preceded the LORD’S day: fourthly, from the eager

attendance on sermons—in many places, twice on this day; and their

constant resorting to evening prayers, where there was no sermon:

lastly, from the severe censures inflicted on those who violated the

laws concerning the religious observation of this day; such persons

being usually punished with excommunication, as appears from the

Apostolical Constitutions, and the canons of several councils.

In the Romish Breviary and other offices, we meet with a distinction of

Sundays into those of the first and second class. Sundays of the first

class are, Palm Sunday, Easter Day, Advent, Whitsunday, &c. Those of the

second class are the common Sundays of the year.—_Bingham._

SUPEREROGATION. In the Romish Church, works of supererogation are those

good deeds which are supposed to have been performed by saints, _over

and above_ what is required for their own salvation. These constitute an

inexhaustible fund, on which the pope has the power of drawing at

pleasure, for the relief of the Church, by the application of some

portion of this superabundant merit, to meet a deficiency in the

spiritual worth of any of its members.

On this doctrine of the Church of Rome our Church thus speaks in the

fourteenth Article:—“Voluntary works besides, over and above GOD’S

commandments, which they call works of supererogation, cannot be taught

without arrogancy and impiety; for by them men do declare, that they do

not only render unto GOD as much as they are bound to do, but that they

do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required; whereas CHRIST

saith plainly, ‘When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We

are unprofitable servants.’”

The works here mentioned are called in the Romish Church likewise by the

name of “counsels” and “evangelical perfections.” They are defined by

their writers to be “good works, not commanded by CHRIST, but

recommended;” rules which do not oblige all men to follow them, under

the pain of sin; but yet are useful to carry them on to a sublimer

degree of perfection than is necessary in order to their salvation. But

there are no such counsels of perfection in the gospel; all the rules,

set to us in it, are in the style and form of precepts; and, though

there may be some actions of more heroical virtue and more sublime piety

than others, to which all men are not obliged by equal and general

rules; yet such men, to whose circumstances and station they belong, are

strictly obliged by them, so that they should sin if they did not put

them in practice.—_Dr. Nicholls. Bp. Burnet._

SUPPLICATIONS. The following part of this Litany [beginning with the

LORD’S Prayer] we call the _Supplications_, which were first collected

and put into this form, when the barbarous nations first began to

overrun the empire about six hundred years after CHRIST: but,

considering the troubles of the Church militant, and the many enemies it

always hath in this world, this part of the Litany is no less suitable

than the former at all times whatsoever.—_Wheatly._ (See _Litany_ and

_Suffrage_.) In many choirs and at the universities this latter part of

the Litany is performed by a different minister from the former: in

apparent compliance with the rubric, which before the LORD’S Prayer

directs that the _Priest_ shall say it. And when the Litany is sung to

the organ, it is usual to sing the responses in the Supplications

without that accompaniment.

SUPRALAPSARIANS. The way in which they understand the Divine decrees,

has produced two distinctions of Calvinists, viz. Sublapsarians and

Supralapsarians. The former term is derived from two Latin words, _sub_,

below or after, and _lapsus_, the fall; and the latter from _supra_,

above, and _lapsus_, the fall. The Sublapsarians assert, that GOD had

only permitted the first man to fall into transgression, without

absolutely predetermining his fall; their system of decrees, concerning

election and reprobation, being, as it were, subsequent to that event.

On the other hand, the Supralapsarians maintained that GOD had, from all

eternity, decreed the transgression of man. The Supralapsarian and

Sublapsarian schemes agree in asserting the doctrine of predestination,

but with this difference, that the former supposes that GOD intended to

glorify his justice in the condemnation of some, as well as his mercy in

the salvation of others; and for that purpose decreed that Adam should

necessarily fall, and by that fall bring himself and all his offspring

into a state of everlasting condemnation. The latter scheme supposes,

that the decree of predestination regards man as fallen by an abuse of

that freedom which Adam had, into a state in which all were to be left

to necessary and unavoidable ruin, who were not exempted from it by

predestination.

SUPREMACY. Lord Chief Justice Hale says, The supremacy of the Crown of

England in matters ecclesiastical is a most indubitable right of the

Crown, as appeareth by records of unquestionable truth and authority.—1

_H. H._ 75.

Lord-Chief Justice Coke says, That, by the ancient laws of this realm,

this kingdom of England is an absolute empire and monarchy, consisting

of one head, which is the king; and of a body, consisting of several

members, which the law divideth into two parts, the clergy and laity,

both of them, next and immediately under GOD, subject and obedient to

the head.—5 _Co._ 8. 40. _Caudrey’s case_.

By the parliament of England, in the 16 Rich. II. c. 5, it is asserted,

that the Crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath

been in no earthly subjection, but immediately subject to GOD in all

things touching the regality of the same Crown, and to none other.

And in the 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12, it is thus recited: “By sundry and

authentic histories and chronicles it is manifestly declared and

expressed, that this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been

accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and king, having

dignity and royal estate of the imperial crown of the same; unto whom a

body politic, compact of all sorts and degrees of people, divided in

terms and by names of spirituality and temporality, been bounden and

owen to bear, next unto GOD, a natural and humble obedience; he being

also furnished by the goodness and sufferance of Almighty GOD, with

plenary, whole, and entire power, pre-eminence, authority, prerogative,

and jurisdiction, to render and yield justice and final determination to

all manner of persons, resiants within this realm, in all cases,

matters, debates, and contentions, without restraint or provocation to

any foreign princes or potentates of the world; in causes spiritual by

judges of the spirituality, and causes temporal by temporal judges.”

Again, 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21. The realm of England, recognising no

superior under GOD but only the king, hath been and is free from

subjection to any man’s laws, but only to such as have been devised,

made, and obtained within this realm for the wealth of the same, or to

such other as, by sufferance of the king, the people of this realm have

taken at their free liberty by their own consent to be used amongst

them, and have bound themselves by long use and custom to the observance

of the same, not as to the observance of the laws of any foreign prince,

potentate, or prelate; but as to the customed and ancient laws of this

realm, originally established as laws of the same by the said

sufferance, contents, and custom, and none otherwise.

The Church of England declares, Can. 1, “As our duty to the king’s most

excellent Majesty requireth, we first decree and ordain, that the

archbishop from time to time, all bishops, deans, archdeacons, parsons,

vicars, and all other ecclesiastical persons, shall faithfully keep and

observe, and as much as in them lieth shall cause to be observed and

kept of others, all and singular laws and statutes made for restoring to

the Crown of this kingdom the ancient jurisdiction over the state

ecclesiastical, and abolishing of all foreign power repugnant to the

same. Furthermore, all ecclesiastical persons having cure of souls, and

all other preachers, and readers of divinity lectures, shall, to the

uttermost of their wit, knowledge, and learning, purely and sincerely,

(without any colour of dissimulation,) teach, manifest, open, and

declare, four times every year at the least, in their sermons and other

collation and lectures, that all usurped and foreign power (forasmuch as

the same hath no establishment nor ground by the law of GOD) is for most

just causes taken away and abolished, and that therefore no manner of

obedience or subjection within his Majesty’s realms and dominions is due

unto any such foreign power; but that the king’s power, within his

realms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and all other his dominions

and countries, is the highest power under GOD, to whom all men, as well

inhabitants as born within the same, do by GOD’S laws owe most loyalty

and obedience, afore and above all other powers and potentates in the

earth.”

Canon 2. “Whoever shall affirm, that the king’s Majesty hath not the

same authority in causes ecclesiastical that the godly kings had amongst

the Jews and Christian emperors of the primitive Church, or impeach any

part of his regal supremacy in the said causes restored to the crown,

and by the laws of this realm therein established, let him be

excommunicated _ipso facto_, and not restored but only by the

archbishop, after his repentance and public revocation of those his

wicked errors.”

Canon 26. “No person shall be received into the ministry, nor admitted

to any ecclesiastical function, except he shall first subscribe (amongst

others) to this article following: that the king’s Majesty, under GOD,

is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other his

Highness’s dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or

ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal; and that no foreign prince,

person, prelate, state, or potentate hath or ought to have any

jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority,

ecclesiastical or spiritual, within his Majesty’s said realms,

dominions, and countries.”

And the 37th Article declares, that “The queen’s Majesty hath the chief

power in this realm of England, and other her dominions; unto whom the

chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be

ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain; and is not, nor

ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction. But when we attribute

to the queen’s Majesty the chief government, we give not thereby to our

princes the ministering, either of GOD’S word or of the sacraments; but

that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all

godly princes in Holy Scripture by God himself, that is, that they

should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God,

whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil

sword the stubborn and evil-doers. The bishop of Rome hath no

jurisdiction in this realm of England.”

By the 1 Eliz. c. 1, it is enacted as follows, viz. that no foreign

prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, spiritual or temporal,

shall use, enjoy, or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction,

superiority, authority, pre-eminence, or privilege, spiritual or

ecclesiastical, within this realm, or any other her Majesty’s dominions

or countries, but the same shall be abolished thereout for ever; any

statute, ordinance, custom, constitutions, or any other matter or cause

whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding. (S. 16.)

And such jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities, and pre-eminence,

spiritual and ecclesiastical, as by any spiritual or ecclesiastical

power or authority have heretofore been, or may lawfully be, exercised

or used for the visitation of the ecclesiastical state and persons, and

for reformation, order, and correction of the same, and of all manner of

errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities,

shall for ever be united and annexed to the imperial crown of this

realm. (S. 17.)

And if any person shall by _writing_, _printing_, _teaching_, _preaching

express words_, _deed_ or _act_, advisedly, maliciously, and directly

affirm, hold, stand with, set forth, maintain, or defend the authority,

pre-eminence, power, or jurisdiction, spiritual or ecclesiastical, of

any foreign prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate whatsoever,

heretofore claimed, used, or usurped within this realm, or any other her

Majesty’s dominions or countries; or shall advisedly, maliciously, and

directly put in use, or execute, anything for the extolling,

advancement, setting forth, maintenance, or defence of any such

pretended or usurped jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, and authority,

or any part thereof; he, his abettors, aiders, procurers, and

counsellors shall, for the first offence, forfeit all his goods, and if

he hath not goods to the value of £20 he shall also be imprisoned for a

year, and the benefices of every spiritual person offending shall also

be void; for the second offence shall incur a præmunire; and for the

third shall be guilty of high treason. (S. 27–30.)

But no person shall be molested for any offence committed only by

_preaching_, _teaching_, or _words_, unless he be indicted within one

half year after the offence committed. (S. 31.)

And no person shall be indicted or arraigned but by the oath of two or

more witnesses; which witnesses, or so many of them as shall be living,

and within the realm at the time of the arraignment, shall be brought

face to face before the party arraigned, if he require the same. (S.

37.)

If any person shall by writing, cyphering, printing, preaching, or

teaching, deed or act, advisedly and wittingly, hold or stand with, to

extol, set forth, maintain or defend the authority, jurisdiction, or

power of the bishop of Rome or of his see, heretofore claimed, used, or

usurped, within this realm, or in any of her Majesty’s dominions; or by

any speech, open deed, or act, advisedly and wittingly attribute any

such manner of jurisdiction, authority, or pre-eminence to the said see

of Rome, or to any bishop of the same see for the time being; he, his

abettors, procurers, and counsellors, his aiders, assistants, and

comforters, upon purpose and to the intent so set forth, further and

extol the said usurped power, being indicted or presented within one

year, and convicted at any time after, shall incur a præmunire.—5

_Eliz._ c. 1, s. 2.

And the justices of assize, or two justices of the peace, (one whereof

to be of the quorum,) in their sessions, may inquire thereof, and shall

certify the presentment into the King’s Bench in forty days, if the term

be then open; if not, at the first day of the full term next following

the said forty days: on pain of £100. (S. 3.)

And the justices of the King’s Bench, as well upon such certificate as

by inquiry before themselves, shall proceed thereupon as in cases of

præmunire. (S. 4.)

But charitable giving of reasonable alms to an offender, without fraud

or covin, shall not be deemed abetting, procuring, counselling, aiding,

assisting, or comforting. (S. 18.)

The papal encroachments upon the king’s sovereignty in causes and over

persons ecclesiastical, yea, even in matters civil, under that loose

pretence of _in ordine ad spiritualia_, had obtained a great strength

and long continuance in this realm, notwithstanding the security the

Crown had by the oaths of fealty and allegiance; so that there was a

necessity to unrivet those usurpations, by substituting by authority of

parliament a recognition by oath of the king’s supremacy, as well in

causes ecclesiastical as civil; and thereupon the oath of supremacy was

framed.—1 _H. H._ 75.

Which oath, as finally established by the 1 Will. III. c. 8, is as

follows: “I A. B. do swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and

abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position,

that princes, excommunicated or deprived by the pope or any authority of

the see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any

other whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person,

prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction,

power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or

spiritual, within this realm: so help me GOD.”

But, lastly, the usurped jurisdiction of the pope being abolished, and

there being no longer any danger to the liberties of the Church or State

from that quarter; and divers of the princes of this realm having

entertained more exalted notions of the supremacy, both ecclesiastical

and civil, than were deemed consistent with the legal establishment and

constitution; it was thought fit at the Revolution to declare and

express, how far the regal power, in matters spiritual as well as

temporal, doth extend; that so, as well the just prerogative of the

Crown on the one hand, as the rights and liberties of the subject on the

other, might be ascertained and secured. Therefore by the statute of the

1 W. III. c. 6, it is enacted as followeth:

“Whereas by the law and ancient usage of this realm, the kings and

queens thereof have taken a solemn oath upon the evangelists at their

respective coronations, to maintain the statutes, laws, and customs of

the said realm, and all the people and inhabitants thereof in their

spiritual and civil rights and properties; but forasmuch as the oath

itself, on such occasion administered, hath heretofore been framed in

doubtful words and expressions, with relation to ancient laws at this

time unknown; to the end therefore that one uniform oath may be in all

times to come taken by the kings and queens of this realm, and to them

respectively administered, at the times of their and every of their

coronation, it is enacted that the following oath shall be administered

to every king or queen who shall succeed to the imperial crown of this

realm, at their respective coronations, by one of the archbishops or

bishops of this realm of England for the time being, to be thereunto

appointed by such king or queen respectively, and in the presence of all

persons that shall be attending, assisting, or otherwise present at such

their respective coronations: that is to say,

“The archbishop or bishop shall say, ‘Will you solemnly promise and

swear, to govern the people of the kingdom of England, and the dominions

thereto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on,

and the laws and customs of the same?’ The king or queen shall say, ‘I

solemnly promise so to do.’

“_Archbishop or bishop_: ‘Will you to your power cause law and justice

in mercy to be executed in all your judgments?’ The king and queen shall

answer, ‘I will.’

“_Archbishop or bishop_: ‘Will you to the utmost of your power maintain

the laws of GOD, the true profession of the gospel, and Protestant

reformed religion established by law? And will you preserve unto the

bishops and clergy of this realm, and to the churches committed to their

charge, all such rites and privileges as by law do or shall appertain

unto them or any of them?’ The king or queen shall answer, ‘All this I

promise to do:’ after this, laying his or her hand upon the holy

Gospels, he or she shall say, ‘The things which I have here before

promised, I will perform and keep: so help me GOD:’ and shall then kiss

the book.”

By the Act of Union of the two kingdoms of England and Scotland, 5 Anne,

c. 8, it is enacted, that after the demise of her Majesty Queen Anne,

the sovereign next succeeding, and so for ever afterwards every king or

queen succeeding to the royal government of the kingdom of Great

Britain, at his or her coronation, shall in the presence of all persons

who shall be attending, assisting, or otherwise then and there present,

take and subscribe an oath to maintain and preserve inviolably the

settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship,

discipline, and government thereof as by law established, within the

kingdoms of England and Ireland, and the dominion of Wales and town of

Berwick-upon-Tweed and the territories thereunto belonging.

And shall also swear and subscribe, that they shall inviolably maintain

and preserve the settlement of the true Protestant religion, with the

government, worship, discipline, right, and privileges of the Church of

Scotland, as then established by the laws of that kingdom. (The

foregoing authorities are quoted from _Burn._)

By the Church of England, the sovereign is thus regarded as being over

all persons, and over all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil,

supreme. On this head an objection is raised against the Church of

England, as if her ministers derived their authority from the Crown.

This objection is thus answered by Palmer: 1. We must insist upon it

that the _principles of the Church of England_, with reference to the

authority of the civil magistrate in ecclesiastical affairs, cannot be

determined in any way by the opinions of lawyers, or the preambles of

acts of parliament. We nowhere subscribe to either one or the other. 2.

The opinion of the temporal power itself as to its own authority in

ecclesiastical affairs, and its acts in accordance with such opinions,

are perfectly distinct from the principles of the Church of England on

these points. We are not bound to adopt such opinions, or approve such

acts of temporal rulers, nor even to approve every point of the existing

law. 3. The clergy of England, in acknowledging the supremacy of the

king, A.D. 1531, did so, as Burnet proves, with the important proviso,

“_quantum per Christi legem licet_;” which _original condition is ever

to be supposed_ in our acknowlegment of the royal supremacy.

Consequently we give no authority to the prince, except what is

consistent with the maintenance of all those rights, liberties,

jurisdictions, and spiritual powers, “which the law of CHRIST confers on

his Church.” 4. The Church of England believes the jurisdiction and

commission of her clergy to come from GOD, by apostolic succession, as

is evident from the ordination service, and has been _proved_ by the

Papist Milner himself (“Letters to a Prebendary,” Let. 8); and it is

decidedly the doctrine of the great majority of her theologians. 5. The

acts of English monarchs have been objected in proof of their views on

the subject. We are not bound to subscribe to those views. If their acts

were wrong in any case, we never approved them, though we may have been

obliged by circumstances to submit to intrusions and usurpations. But

since this is a favourite topic with Romanists, let us view the matter a

little on another side. I ask, then, whether the parliaments of France

did not, for a long series of years, exercise jurisdiction over the

administration of the sacraments, compelling the Roman bishops and

priests of France to give the sacrament to Jansenists, whom they

believed to be heretics? Did they not repeatedly judge in questions of

faith, viz. as to the obligation of the bull “_Unigenitus_?” Did they

not take cognizance of questions of faith and discipline to such a

degree, that they were said to resemble “a school of theology?” I ask

whether the clergy of France in their convocations were not _wholly_

under the control of the king, who could prescribe their subjects of

debate, prevent them from debating, prorogue, dissolve, &c.?

Did they not repeatedly beg in vain from the kings of France, for a long

series of years, to be permitted to hold provincial synods for the

suppression of immorality, heresy, and infidelity? Is not this liberty

still withheld from them, and from every other Roman Church in Europe? I

further ask whether the emperor Joseph II. did not _enslave_ the

Churches of Germany and Italy? Whether he did not suppress monasteries,

suppress and unite bishoprics? Whether he did not suspend the bishops

from conferring orders, exact from them oaths of obedience to all his

measures present and future, issue royal decrees for removing images

from churches, and for the regulation of Divine worship down to the

minutest points, even to the number of candles at mass? Whether he did

not take on himself to silence preachers who had declaimed against

persons of unsound faith? Whether he did not issue decrees against the

bull “_Unigenitus_,” thus interfering with the doctrinal decision of the

whole Roman Church? I ask whether this conduct was not accurately

imitated by the grand duke of Tuscany, the king of Naples, the duke of

Parma; whether it did not become prevalent in almost every part of the

Roman Church; and whether its effects do not continue to the present

day? I again ask, whether “Organic Articles” were not enacted by

Buonaparte in the new Gallican Church, which placed everything in

ecclesiastical affairs under the government? Whether the bishops were

not forbidden by the emperor to confer orders without the permission of

government; whether the obvious intention was not to place the priests,

even in their spiritual functions, under the civil powers? And, in fine,

whether these obnoxious “Organic Articles” are not, up to the present

day, in almost every point in force? I again inquire whether the order

of Jesuits was not suppressed by the mere civil powers, in Portugal,

Spain, France, Italy, &c.; whether convents, monasteries,

confraternities, friars, and monks, and nuns, of every sort and kind,

were not extinguished, suppressed, annihilated by royal commission, and

by the temporal power, in France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Sicily,

Spain, Portugal, &c., and in opposition to the petitions and protests of

the pope and the bishops? I again ask, whether the king of Sicily does

not, in his “Tribunal of the Monarchy,” up to the present day, try

ecclesiastical causes, censure, excommunicate, absolve? Whether this

tribunal did not, in 1712, give absolution from episcopal

excommunications; and whether it was not restored by Benedict XII. in

1728?

Is there a Roman Church on the continent of Europe, where the clergy can

communicate freely with him whom they regard as their spiritual head; or

where all papal bulls, rescripts, briefs, &c. are not subjected to a

rigorous surveillance on the part of government, and allowed or

disallowed at its pleasure? In fine, was not Gregory XVI. himself

compelled, in his encyclical letter of 1832, to utter the most vehement

complaints and lamentations, at the degraded condition of the Roman

obedience? Does he not confess that the Church is “subjected to _earthly

considerations_,” “_reduced to a base servitude_,” “the rights of its

bishops _trampled on?_” These are all certain facts: I appeal in proof

of them to the Roman historians, and to many other writers of authority;

and they form but a part of what might be said on this subject.

Romanists should blush to accuse the Church of England for the acts of

our civil rulers in ecclesiastical matters. They should remember those

words, “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye,

and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy

brother’s eye.”

But it will be objected, all this was contrary at least to the

principles of the Roman Church, while English theologians, on the

contrary, exaggerate the authority of the civil magistrate in

ecclesiastical affairs. We admit unequivocally, that some of our

theologians have spoken unadvisedly on this subject. But what of that?

Can they have gone further than the whole school of Gallican writers, of

modern canonists, and reforming theologians, in the Romish Church, whose

object is to overthrow the papal power, and render the Church

subservient in all things to the State? Do Romanists imagine that we are

ignorant of the principles of Pithou and the Gallican School, of

Giannone, Van Espen, Zallwein, De Hontheim, Ricci, Eybel, Sioch,

Rechberger, Oberhauser, Riegger, Cavallari, Tamburini, and fifty others,

who were tinged with the very principles imputed to us? Do they forget

that their _clergy_ in many parts have petitioned _princes_ to remove

the _canonical law_ of celibacy? In fine, is it not well known, that

there is a conspiracy among many of their theologians, to subject the

discipline of the Church to the civil magistrate? It is really too much

for Romanists to assail us on the very point where they are themselves

most vulnerable, and where they are actually most keenly suffering. Our

Churches, though subject to some inconvenience, and lately aggrieved by

the suppression of bishoprics in Ireland, contrary to the solemn

protests of the bishops and clergy, are yet in a far more respectable

and independent position than the Roman Churches. Those amongst us who

maintain the highest principles of the spiritual jurisdiction of the

Church, have reason to feel thankful that we have not yet fallen to the

level of the Church of Rome.

SUPREMACY, PAPAL. The fourth Lateran Council, in the year 1215, is the

first of those called general which recognised the authority of the

Roman see as supreme over the Church. In the fifth canon the Roman

Church is said to have “a principality of power over all others, as the

mother and mistress of all Christian believers;” and all other

patriarchs are required to receive their palls from the Roman pontiff.

The titles of universal pope and universal patriarch, first used by the

bishops of Constantinople, and afterwards applied indifferently to the

bishops of Rome and Constantinople, as appears by the letters of the

emperor Constantine Pogonatus, in Labbe and Cossart, vol. vi. pp. 593,

599, were titles of honour, and did not imply universal jurisdiction.

There was no allusion to it in any former general council; so that, up

to 1215, it was free for a man to think how he pleased concerning it.

And not only were men free to deny the papal supremacy, they were bound

to resist and reject it, in all places where it could not be proved to

have been from the beginning. For so it was decreed by the third general

council, which was assembled at Ephesus, A. D. 431, “that none of the

bishops, most beloved of GOD, do assume any other province that is not,

and was not formerly, and from the beginning, subject to him, or those

who were his predecessors. But if any have assumed any church, that he

be forced to restore it, that so the canons of the fathers be not

transgressed, nor worldly pride be introduced under the mask of this

sacred function. The holy general synod hath therefore decreed, that the

right of every province, formerly, and from the beginning, belonging to

it, be preserved clear and inviolable.” This decree was passed on the

occasion of an attempt by the patriarch of Antioch to usurp authority

over the churches of the island of Cyprus, which had not been formerly

under his jurisdiction, and is worthy of notice to the members of the

Churches of England and Ireland. For as it is beyond denial, from the

conduct of the British and Irish bishops, that the Churches in these

islands knew no subjection to Rome up to the close of the sixth century,

it is certain that every exercise of jurisdiction which the bishop of

Rome practised afterwards for a time in this kingdom, was in violation

of the decrees of the Catholic Church, and that the Churches here were

merely acting in obedience to those decrees, when, after having made

trial of that cruel bondage, they were enabled to release themselves

from it. There is one other thing not unworthy of notice as concerns

this point. By the creed of Pope Pius, all communicants in the Church of

Rome are required to acknowledge as part of that “faith without which no

man can be saved,” “the holy Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, for the

mother and mistress of all Churches.” It should be known that the

Fathers assembled in the second general council, Constantinople, A. D.

381, gave the title which is here claimed for Rome to the Church of

Jerusalem, as appears from their synodical epistle. “We acknowledge the

most venerable Cyril, most beloved of GOD, to be bishop of the Church of

Jerusalem, which is the mother of all Churches.”—See _Conc._ ii. 866.

Thus then it appears, that in order to obtain communion in Rome, it is

necessary to record an opinion directly at variance with that of a

general council universally acknowledged.

The following has been abbreviated from Mr. Sanderson Robins’s very able

treatise on the Evidence of Scripture against the Claims of the Church

of Rome.

“The earlier popes knew nothing of the modern view which makes Peter and

his alleged successors to be the supreme pastors, and all other bishops

subordinate and deriving authority from them. Launoy cites no fewer than

forty who employ the term fellow-bishop, and fellow-priest; which

utterly contradicts the opinion of Bellarmine and his school. The very

formula which indicates the invasion of episcopal independence, ‘By the

grace of the apostolic see,’ is not to be traced farther back than the

middle of the thirteenth century. Yet Duval argues that because the

jurisdiction of bishops can be limited or taken away by the pope, it is

not derived immediately from Christ. The converse is the true

proposition; because it is derived immediately from Christ, it cannot be

limited or taken away by the pope.

“The interpretation which assigns supreme power to the pope as Peter’s

successor, would make him universal bishop, and leave nothing but

vicarial power to all other bishops, which is exactly the conclusion so

strenuously resisted by Gregory the Great, when he feared the growing

importance of the see of Constantinople. Bellarmine admits the title to

be antichristian and profane; but when he attempts to draw a distinction

in favour of the powers claimed for the bishop of Rome, he reasons

illogically, as Launoy has abundantly proved.

“The witness of the Bible remains, in spite of all efforts to conceal or

pervert its meaning by those who are interested in defending an adverse

system. It represents the office of CHRIST as incommunicable and

unapproachable. He is the Root, from which the branches derive life and

strength; the Shepherd, who knows his sheep, and is known of them; the

heavenly Bridegroom, to whom the Church is espoused. So, again, he is

‘the Head over all things to the Church, which is his body, the fulness

of him that filleth all in all.’ When the title is ascribed to another,

there is insurmountable difficulty involved. If Peter, or the bishop of

Rome, is the head, then the Church must in the same sense be his body,

which no one ventures to say. The distinction, again, between a visible

and an invisible head has not the least show of Scripture proof, and is

no better than an invention to meet an obvious difficulty. Nor is it of

any avail to speak, as some do, of CHRIST as the essential, and Peter as

the ministerial head, because whatever relation to the Church is

represented by the figure, can exist only under the former, that is, by

the union of believers to CHRIST, which is maintained through the

ministry of the word and sacraments.

“There is an utter and hopeless disagreement, and on a point which

involves supreme government. It is no secondary question, but one, as

Dupin reminds us, which includes all ecclesiastical discipline. And yet,

whether pope is superior to council, or the reverse; and whether the

pope enjoys his prerogatives by Divine right, or ecclesiastical, has

never been defined, though the decision is above all things required. In

the Council of Trent, where the delivery of a clear, intelligible

doctrine might have been reasonably expected, there was, instead, a

prohibition of all discussion on the subject. It is not even settled

whether, by disagreement on the question, persons incur the peril of

heresy; Gerson holds the affirmative, and Bossuet sides with him, while

Duval and others maintain the negative. The truth is, that the Roman

Church has authorized two opposite conclusions, which have been enforced

as the one party or the other prevailed. It is not the mere contention

of private doctors, whose judgment might on either side be disavowed,

but it is the Church itself which speaks inconsistently by its synodical

decisions. It has, indeed, been demanded unreasonably, and sometimes

incautiously allowed, that no statements of doctrine should be

attributed to the Roman Church as authoritative, but such as are

contained in the decrees of the Council of Trent, in the creed of Pius

IV., and in the catechism. But it is to be observed, in the first place,

that the decisions of the council avowedly do not extend beyond such

points as had been brought into question by Protestants, and, at the

same time, had not been disputed among Romanists themselves, for it was

expressly enjoined that no definition should be made about any matter

controverted among ‘Catholics’ themselves. The creed and the catechism

have no more than the authority of the individual pope, by whom they

were promulgated. It is true that this office was remitted to the bishop

of Rome by the members of the council, but they possessed no such power

of delegation. They might have adopted any decree of the pope, and have

given it synodical sanction; but their consent previous to the

consideration, or even knowledge of its contents, could not afford any

weight additional to that which the pope alone could give. And, in the

next place, the index of books, the catechism, the breviary, and the

missal, possess equal authority, for they are enumerated together in the

decree passed at the close of the council; that is, they possess as much

authority as the decree of a pope could give them, and less than that

which belongs to the decree of a council which has papal confirmation.

It is true that, in the last of the articles which Pius IV. added to the

creed of the Church Catholic, there is a profession of adherence to the

decrees of general councils; but then no Romanist can tell what is and

what is not a general council. It depends on the school to which he

belongs, and on which side of the mountains he happens to live. Some

so-called general councils, as Bellarmine tells us, are received, some

are rejected, and some partly approved and partly reprobated; which, as

Leslie says truly, ‘is going through all the degrees of uncertainty.’

The chief difficulty arises from those which flatly contradict each

other, and which yet, from indispensable considerations, the Roman

Church is obliged to acknowledge; they are chiefly such as pronounce

upon this question of the supreme authority. At Pisa, and Constance, and

Basle, the superiority of a council was distinctly and absolutely

affirmed; and obedience required from all persons of whatever dignity,

including the pope. In the Council of Florence it was decreed that the

pope, as the successor of Peter, and as the vicar of CHRIST, is head of

the whole church, the father and teacher of all Christians, and that

plenary power from CHRIST was given him, in the person of St. Peter, to

feed the universal flock. The Lateran Council under Leo X. decreed that

the pope has full authority over all councils, to summon, transfer, and

dissolve them. It is to be observed, that these conflicting decisions of

great Roman councils are no more than the embodying in decrees the

opposite interpretations of that text which forms the main Scripture

authority for all papal assumptions. No Latin council is to be compared

with that of Constance for importance or dignity; and by its acts,

accepted and confirmed through the whole Western Church, it rejected the

exposition which Romanists are now trying to enforce. M. de Maistre, the

chief papal champion in the present century, disposes of the difficulty

in a very characteristic way. When pressed with the Decrees of

Constance, he says that the answer is easy: the council talked nonsense,

like the English Long Parliament, or the Constituent Assembly, or the

National Convention, &c.

“Our opponents boast that their Church is the same everywhere; but we

cross the Alps, and find the whole system of ecclesiastical doctrine

changed. The very term, ultramontane, which is universally recognised as

the distinction of a school, bears witness that diversities have not

only subsisted at different periods, but exist at the same time in

different places. The Gallican Church has, doubtless, been the

stronghold of those who deny the absolute power of the pope; but they

have had their advocates among distinguished members of the Roman

communion in all countries. Panormitan represented them in Italy,

Cardinal de Cusa in Germany, and in Spain Alphonso Tostato, of whom

Bellarmine says that he was the wonder of the world for his learning.

Nay, even in the university of Paris, and among the doctors of the

Sorbonne, we find the contest raging with the utmost violence, and the

great teachers in vehement antagonism. Sometimes we see the

representative of the pope brought into collision with the theological

professor; as when Richer maintained the prevalent opinions of his

Church against Cardinal du Perron, who, being a convert from

Protestantism, was, of course, extravagant on the other side. Then, at

the close of the century, we have Roccaberti, archbishop of Valentia,

unsparing in his condemnation of the Gallicans, and calling on the pope

to put them down. While Bossuet, on the other hand, affirms that the

doctrine which he maintained had always been held in the Church; though

he does not attempt to prove that there had not been another distinct

line of teaching.”

SURCINGLE. The belt by which the cassock is fastened round the waist.

SURETY. (See _Sponsors_.)

SURPLICE. A white linen garment, worn by the Christian clergy and other

ministers of the Church, in the celebration of Divine services, and

also, on certain days, by members of colleges, whether clerical or lay.

It is, in Latin, _superpelliceum_, a name which Cardinal Bona says was

not older than 600 years before his time, (the middle of the seventeenth

century,) and was so called from the white garment which was placed by

ecclesiastics, _super pelles_, over the garments of dressed skins worn

by the northern nations.

This habit seems to have been originally copied from the vestments of

the Jewish priests, who, by GOD’S own appointment, were to put on a

white linen ephod at the time of public service. And its antiquity in

the Christian Church may be seen from Gregory Nazianzen, who advised the

priests to purity, because a little spot is soon seen in a white

garment; but more expressly from St. Jerome, who, reproving the needless

scruples of such as opposed the use of it, says, “what offence can it be

to GOD, for a bishop or priest to proceed to the communion in a white

garment?” The ancients called this garment, from its colour, _Alba_, the

_Albe_, a word in later times applied to a surplice with close sleeves.

The surplice is white, to represent the innocence and righteousness with

which GOD’S ministers ought to be clothed. As for the shape of it, it is

a thing so perfectly indifferent, that no reason need to be assigned for

it; though Durandus has found out one: for that author observes, that,

as the garments used by the Jewish priesthood were girt tight about

them, to signify the bondage of the law; so the looseness of the

surplices used by the Christian priests signifies the freedom of the

gospel.

It is objected by dissenters from the Church of England, against the use

of the surplice, that it is a rag of Popery, and has been abused by the

Papists to superstitious and idolatrous uses. But this is no just

objection against it; for, if the surplice, or some such white garment,

was in use among the primitive Christians, the Church is justified in

following their example, notwithstanding the abuses thereof by those of

the Romish or any other communion.

Whether the surplice should be worn by the preacher in the pulpit is a

question which has given rise, of late years, to much unprofitable

controversy. On the side of wearing the surplice, it is said that the

preacher is nowhere in the Prayer Book directed to change his dress; and

therefore his dress should be, as before prescribed, the surplice. On

the other hand it has been shown that, before the Reformation, the

preachers were accustomed to wear their ordinary dress in the pulpit,

except in cathedrals and collegiate churches, which custom has come down

to us; and to adhere to inherited customs is to act on the catholic

principle. On these facts it is obvious to remark, first, that the

ultra-Protestants who are very violent against the use of the surplice

by the preacher,—are, in this instance, the Romanizers; and secondly,

that if the surplice be not worn, since no preacher’s dress is appointed

by the Church, the preacher would be more correct who should appear in

his ordinary costume. But those who are wise on either side, will, in

regard to a thing so purely indifferent, follow the customs of the place

in which they are called to officiate.

SURPLICE DAYS, or _times_. According to the 17th canon, “all masters and

fellows of colleges or halls, and all the scholars and students in

either of the universities, shall in their churches and chapels, upon

all Sundays, holy-days, and their eves, at the time of Divine service,

wear surplices according to the order of the Church of England; and such

as are graduates, shall agreeably wear with their surplices such hoods

as do severally appertain unto their degrees.” Saturday evening, it is

to be observed, as the eve of Sunday, has always been considered as

coming within this rule. The colleges in the universities of Cambridge

and Dublin construe this rule as applying to all their members; those of

Oxford, Christ Church excepted, to the foundation members only; and

there noblemen are deprived of the privilege of wearing the surplice. By

the 25th canon, the use of the surplice is prescribed daily to the dean,

masters, heads of collegiate churches, canons, and prebendaries. The

short surplice adopted in the Roman Church is a corruption, as Cardinal

Bona confesses. He says that “Stephen of Tonmay, who lived A. D. 1180,

shows that the surplice formerly reached to the feet;” and so likewise

“Honorius de Vestibus Clericorum:” and that in the course of time it was

shortened, as it appears from the Council of Basle, sess. 21, which

commanded the clergy to have surplices reaching below the middle of the

leg. He adds, that they are now so much shortened as scarcely to reach

to the knee. Hence it is evident that the Church of England retains the

correct and ancient fashion.—_Jebb._

SURROGATE. Surrogate is one who is substituted or appointed in the room

of another. Thus the office of granting licences for marriage in lieu of

banns, being in the bishop of the diocese by his chancellor, the

inconvenience of a journey to the seat of episcopal jurisdiction is

obviated by the appointment of clergymen in the principal towns of the

diocese as surrogates, with the power of granting such licences, and of

granting probates of wills, &c.

By canon 128, “No chancellor, commissary, archdeacon, official, or any

other person using ecclesiastical jurisdiction, shall substitute in

their absence any to keep court for them, unless he be either a grave

minister and a graduate, or a licensed public preacher, and a beneficed

man near the place where the courts are kept, or a bachelor of law, or a

master of arts at least, who hath some skill in the civil and

ecclesiastical law, and is a favourer of true religion, and a man of

modest and honest conversation; under pain of suspension, for every time

that they offend therein, from the execution of their offices for the

space of three months _toties quoties_: and he likewise that is deputed,

being not qualified as is before expressed, and yet shall presume to be

a substitute to any judge, and shall keep any court as aforesaid, shall

undergo the same censure in manner and form as is before expressed.”

And by the statute of the 26 Geo. II. c. 33, No surrogate, deputed by

any ecclesiastical judge, who hath power to grant licences of marriage,

shall grant any such licence before he hath taken an oath before the

said judge, faithfully to execute his office according to law, to the

best of his knowledge; and hath given security by his bond in the sum of

£100 to the bishop of the diocese, for the due and faithful execution of

his office.

SURSUM CORDA. (_Lift up your hearts._) Cyprian, in the third century,

attests the use of the form “Lift up your hearts,” and its response, in

the liturgy of Africa. Augustine, at the beginning of the fifth century,

speaks of these words as being used in _all_ churches. And accordingly

we find them placed at the beginning of the Anaphora, or canon, (or

solemn prayers,) in the liturgies of Antioch and Cæsarea, Constantinople

and Rome, Africa, Gaul, and Spain. How long these introductory sentences

have been used in England it would be in vain to inquire: we have no

reason, however, to doubt that they are as old as Christianity itself in

these countries. The Gallican and Italian churches used them, and

Christianity with its liturgy probably came to the British isles from

one or other of those churches. We may be certain, at all events, that

they have been used in the English liturgy ever since the time of

Augustine, archbishop of Canterbury, in 595.

It appears that these sentences were preceded by a salutation or

benediction in the ancient liturgies. According to Theodoret, the

beginning of the mystical liturgy, or most solemn prayers, was that

apostolic benediction, “The grace of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and the love

of GOD, and the fellowship of the HOLY GHOST, be with you all.” The same

was also alluded to by Chrysostom, when he was a presbyter of the Church

of Antioch. We find that this benediction, with the response of the

people, “And with thy spirit,” has all along preserved its place in the

East; for in the liturgies of Cæsarea, Constantinople, Antioch, and

Jerusalem, it is uniformly placed at the beginning of the _Anaphora_,

just before the form, “Lift up your hearts.” In Egypt, Africa, and

Italy, the apostolic benediction was not used at this place, but instead

of it the priest said, “The LORD be with you,” and the people replied,

“and with thy spirit.” In Spain, and probably Gaul, as now in England,

there was no salutation before the introductory sentences.

_Priest._ Lift up your hearts. │_Sacerdos._ corda.

_Answer._ We lift them up unto the│_Respons._ Habemus ad Dominum.

Lord. │

_Priest._ Let us give thanks unto │_Sacerdos._ Gratias agamus Domino

our Lord God. │Deo nostro.

_Answer._ It is meet and right so │_Respons_. Dignum et justum est.

to do. │

│ _Palmer._

SUSANNAH, THE HISTORY OF. An apocryphal book (or rather chapter) of the

Bible, containing the story of one Susannah, daughter of Chelcias, and

the wife of Joachim, of the tribe of Judah, who lived at Babylon, being

carried thither captive with her husband, probably at the same time with

Daniel, that is, in the year of the world 3398, before Christ 604. The

story is well known, being allowed to be read, among other apocryphal

books, for the instruction of manners.

This history makes part of the book of Daniel in the Greek, but is not

found in the Hebrew. Many therefore have disputed, not only the

canonicalness, but even the truth of it; imagining it to be no more than

a pious fable, invented as an example of a chaste and loyal wife. Julius

Africanus was of this opinion; and St. Jerome in some places censures it

as a mere fable; though, in others, he tells us that not only the Greeks

and Latins, but the Syrians and Egyptians also, received and admitted it

as Scripture. Origen wrote expressly in defence of it. The Church of

Rome allows it to be of equal authority with the Book of Daniel.

SUSPENSION. In the laws of the Church we read of two sorts of

suspension; one relating solely to the clergy, the other extending also

to the laity. That which relates solely to the clergy is suspension from

office and benefice jointly, or from office or benefice singly; and may

be called a temporary degradation, or deprivation of both. And the

penalty upon a clergyman officiating after suspension, if he shall

persist therein after a reproof from the bishop, (by the ancient canon

law,) that he shall be excommunicated all manner of ways, and every

person who communicates with him shall be excommunicated also. The other

sort of suspension, which extends also to the laity, is suspension _ab

ingressu ecclesiæ_, or from the hearing of Divine service, and receiving

the holy communion; which may therefore be called a temporary

excommunication. Which two sorts of suspension, the one relating to the

clergy alone, and the other to the laity also, do herein agree, that

both are inflicted for crimes of an inferior nature, such as in the

first case deserve not deprivation, and such as in the second case

deserve not excommunication; that both, in practice at least, are

temporary; both also terminate either at a certain time, when inflicted

for such time, or upon satisfaction given to the judge when inflicted

until something be performed which he has enjoined; and lastly, both (if

unduly performed) are attended with further penalties; that of the

clergy with irregularity, if they act in the mean time; and that of the

laity (as it seems) with excommunication, if they either presume to join

in communion during their suspension, or do not in due time perform

those things which the suspension was intended to enforce the

performance of.

SWEDENBORGIANS. This body of Christians claims to possess an entirely

new dispensation of doctrinal truth derived from the theological

writings of Emanuel Swedenborg; and, as the name imports, they refuse to

be numbered with the sects of which the general body of Christendom is

at present composed.

Emanuel Baron Swedenborg was born at Stockholm in 1688, and died in

London in 1772. He was a person of great intellectual attainments, a

member of several of the learned societies of Europe, and the author of

very voluminous philosophical treatises. In 1745 he separated himself

from all secular pursuits, relinquished his official labours in the

Swedish State, and commenced the career which led to a religious

movement. In that year, and thenceforth, he was favoured, he reports,

with continual communications from the spiritual world, being oftentimes

admitted into heaven itself, and there indulged with splendid visions of

angelic glory and felicity. The power was given him to converse with

these celestial residents; and from their revelations, sometimes made

directly to himself and sometimes gathered by him from the course of

their deliberations, he obtained the most important of his doctrines.

His own account of the matter is thus stated in a letter to a friend:—“I

have been called to a holy office by the Lord himself, who most

graciously manifested himself before me, his servant, in the year 1745,

and then opened my sight into the spiritual world, and gave me to speak

with spirits and angels, as I do even to this day. From that time I

began to publish the many arcana which I have either seen, or which have

been revealed to me, concerning heaven and hell, concerning the state of

man after death, concerning true Divine worship, and concerning the

spiritual sense of the Word, besides other things of the highest

importance, conducive to salvation and wisdom.”

The general result of these communications was to convince the baron

that the sacred writings have two senses—one their natural, the other

their spiritual, sense; the latter of which it was his high commission

to unfold. The natural sense is that which is alone received by other

Christian churches—the words of Scripture being understood to have the

same signification (and no other) which they bear in ordinary human

intercourse; the spiritual sense is that which, in the judgment of the

New Church, is concealed within the natural sense of these same words,

each word or phrase possessing, in addition to its ordinary meaning, an

interior significance corresponding with some spiritual truth.

The principal tenets he deduced from this interior meaning of the Holy

Word, and which his followers still maintain, are these: That the last

judgment has already been accomplished (viz. in 1757); that the former

“heaven and earth” are passed away; that the “New Jerusalem,” mentioned

in the Apocalypse, has already descended, in the form of the “New

Church;” and, that, consequently, the second advent of the LORD has even

now been realized, in a spiritual sense, by the exhibition of his power

and glory in the New Church thus established.

The usual doctrine of the Trinity is not received; the belief of the New

Church being, “that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in the

person of our Lord Jesus Christ, comparatively as soul, body, and

proceeding operation are one in every individual man.”

The New Church also rejects the doctrine of justification by faith

alone, and the imputed righteousness of Christ: salvation, it

inculcates, cannot be obtained except by the combination of good works

with faith. “To fear God, and to work righteousness, is to have charity;

and whoever has charity, whatever his religious sentiments may be, will

be saved.”

The resurrection, it is believed, will not be that of the material body,

but of a spiritual body; and this will not immediately pass into a final

state of being, but be subject to a kind of purgatory, where those who

are interiorly good will receive truth corresponding with their state of

goodness, and thus be fitted for heaven; while those who are interiorly

evil will reject all truth, and thus be among the lost.

The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper are administered in the

New Church. The former is believed to be “a sign and a medium, attended

with a Divine influence of introduction into the Lord’s Church; and it

means that the Lord will purify our minds from wicked desires and bad

thoughts, if we are obedient to his holy word.” The latter is believed

to be “a sign and a medium, attended with a Divine influence, for

introducing the Lord’s true children, as to their spirits, into heaven;

and it means that the Lord feeds their souls with his Divine goodness

and truth.”

The mode of worship adopted by the followers of Swedenborg resembles in

its general form that of most other Christian bodies; the distribution

of subjects in their liturgy, and the composition of their hymns and

prayers, being, of course, special; but no particular form is considered

to be binding on each society.

The general affairs of the New Church (which is the name assumed by the

Swedenborgian sect) are managed by a conference, which meets yearly,

composed of ministers and laymen in conjunction; the proportion of the

latter being determined by the size of the respective congregations

which they represent: a society of from 12 to 50 members sending one

representative, and societies of from 50 to 100 members, and those of

upwards 100 members, sending each two and three representatives

respectively. There is nothing, however, in Swedenborg’s writings to

sanction any particular form of Church government.—_Registrar-general’s

Report._

SYMBOL, or SYMBOLUM. A title anciently given to the Apostles’ Creed, and

for which several reasons have been assigned. Two of these have an

appearance of probability, viz. that (1.) which derives it from a Greek

word, signifying a _throwing_ or _casting together_, and alleges that

the apostles each contributed an article to form the creed, forming

their joint opinion or counsel in an abridged form; and (2.) the opinion

that this creed was used in times of persecution as a watchword or mark

whereby Christians (like soldiers in the army) were distinguished from

all others. This latter is the sense given in the short catechism of

Edward VI., 1552, where we read, “_M._ Why is this abridgment of the

faith termed a _symbol_? _S._ A symbol is, as much as to say, a sign,

mark, privy token, or watchword, whereby the soldiers of the same camp

are known from their enemies. For this reason the abridgment of the

faith, whereby the Christians are known from them that are no

Christians, is rightly named a symbol.”

The term symbol, importing an emblem or sensible representation, is also

applied in the holy eucharist to the sacred elements, which there set

forth the body and blood of CHRIST. (See also _Emblem_.)

SYMPHONY. In music, an instrumental composition in the form of an

overture, &c. The term is popularly applied to short introductory

movements on the organ, before anthems and other pieces; also to any

portion performed by the instrument without the voices, including

preludes, interludes, and postludes, i. e. strains _before_, in _the

midst_, and at _the end_ of psalmody, and other church music.

The word _sumphónea_ occurs in Daniel iii. 5, 7, 10, 15; being evidently

the Greek word συμφωνία, written in Hebrew or Chaldee letters, like

other words in the same sentence, as Kaitheros, κιθύρα, (harp,) sabbeca,

σαμβύκη, (sacbut,) psanterin, ψαλτήριον, (psaltery,) and which do not

occur in the older Hebrew Scriptures. It is translated in our Bible

_dulcimer_. Hardouin (in his note on Plinii Hist. Nat. ix. § 8)

considers it to mean a musical instrument. But the majority of scholars,

and of classical authorities, give as its meaning, a concert or

combination of voices or instruments.

SYNOD. This is a meeting of ecclesiastical persons for the purposes of

religion, and it comprehends the provincial synods of every

metropolitan, and the diocesan of every bishop within their limits. And

these are not of the same authority as general councils, nor do their

canons oblige the whole Christian Church, but only that nation,

province, or diocese where they were made; but if such canons are

agreeable with the Scriptures, and confirmed by general councils, they

are in force everywhere. The most famous synods have been held in

Africa, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain. It would make a very

large volume to treat particularly of those synods which have been held

in each of those places, therefore we will refer to those which were

assembled here in Britain; and as to that matter, we find that a synod

was held here at Winchester, in the time of King Edgar, in which

Archbishop Dunstan was president. In this synod the marriage of the

clergy was prohibited. There was another held at Oxford, wherein

Archbishop Langton was president, who divided the Bible into chapters;

and in this synod many constitutions were made for the better government

of the church. Another at Clarendon, under Archbishop Becket, in the

reign of Henry II., in which some decrees were made concerning the

prerogatives of the Crown and the privileges of the clergy. Two in the

reign of Edward VI. And here we may notice that provincial synods were

to be held twice in every year; this appears by the apostolical canons,

and likewise by those made in the Council of Nice. But this being found

too hard a task for bishops, (who were usually men in years,) especially

where the provinces were large, it was disused about the middle of the

fifth century: so that some canons were made for synods to be held once

in a year, but not abrogating the ancient custom to hold them oftener;

and this continued for many ages: but at last this came in like manner

to be neglected, and thereupon, about the middle of the fourteenth

century, another canon was made in the Council of Basil, for a triennial

synod of all the bishops of every province; and in the same council

there was another canon for every bishop to hold a diocesan synod once

in a year. And even here in Britain, by the ancient constitution of this

Church, a synod was to be held once a year, which is now discontinued,

and thus the authority of examining things through the province devolved

on the archdeacon. In a diocesan synod the bishop always presided, and

he usually summoned _septem e plebe_ in every parish in his diocese, to

whom he administered an oath to inquire into the state and condition of

each parish relating to ecclesiastical affairs, which were called

_testes synodales_, and these men made their presentments in writing, or

_viva voce_ in the synod. (See _Councils_.)

The form of holding these diocesan synods was as follows:—The clergy, in

solemn procession, came to the church assigned, at the time appointed by

the bishop, and seated themselves according to the priority of their

ordinations. Then the deacons and laity were admitted. The bishop, or in

his absence the vicar, when the office for the occasion was over, made a

solemn exhortation to the audience. Then a sermon was preached; after

which, if the clergy had any complaints to make, or anything else to

offer, they were heard by the synod. The complaints of the clergy being

over, the laity made theirs. Then the bishop proposed his diocesan

constitutions to them. After which, if nothing remained to be done, he

made a synodical exhortation, by way of injunction, to the clergy; and

all concluded with solemn prayers suited to the business. The form at

the conclusion of the first day, called _Benedictio primæ diei_, was

this: “Qui dispersos Israel congregat, ipse vos hic et ubique custodiat.

Amen. Et non solum vos custodiat, sed ovium suarum custodes idoneos

efficiat. Amen. Ut cum summo pastore Christo de gregum suarum pastione

gaudeatis in cœlo. Amen. Quod ipse parare dignetur,” &c. The

benedictions of the other days were much to the same purpose.

The common time allowed for despatching the business of these synods was

three days; and a rubric was settled, to direct the proceedings in each

of them. But, if the business could be despatched in a shorter time, the

assembly continued no longer than was necessary.

The first thing done in these diocesan synods, was the bishop’s making

his synodical inquiries, of which the ancient forms are still extant.

Next, the synodical causes were heard. Then the bishop reported to his

clergy what had been decreed in large provincial synods. And, lastly, he

published his own diocesan constitutions, which being read, and agreed

to by the synod, were from that time in force within the diocese,

provided they were not contrary to the decrees of some superior council

of the province. Of these we have several collections published in the

volumes of the English councils, and many more are still remaining in

the bishops’ registers.

These diocesan synods were continued in England till the reign of Henry

VIII., that is, till the commencement of the Reformation.

Provincial synods are still held pro forma in Ireland, by the archbishop

of Dublin, as they were by his predecessor, at the triennial visitations

of his province. The constituent number are the same as for

convocations, being the bishops of the province, deans, archdeacons,

capitular and other proctors, &c. But the synods have no power to make

canons.

SYNODALS and SYNODATICUM, by the name, have a plain relation to the

holding of synods; but there being no reason why the clergy should pay

for their attending the bishop in synod, pursuant to his own citation,

nor any footsteps to be found of such a payment by reason of the holding

of synods, the name is supposed to have grown from this duty being

usually paid by the clergy when they came to the synod. And this in all

probability is the same which was anciently called _cathedraticum_, as

paid by the parochial clergy in honour to the episcopal chair, and in

token of subjection and obedience thereto. So it stands in the body of

the canon law, “No bishop shall demand anything of the churches but the

honour of the cathedraticum, that is, two shillings” (at the most, saith

the Gloss, for sometimes less is given). And the duty which we call

synodals is generally such a small payment, which payment was reserved

by the bishop upon settling the revenues of the respective churches on

the incumbents; whereas before those revenues were paid to the bishop,

who had a right to part of them for his own use, and a right to apply

and distribute the rest to such uses and in such proportions as the laws

of the Church directed.—_Gibson._

Synodals are due of common right to the bishop only, so that, if they be

claimed or demanded by the archdeacon, or dean and chapter, or any other

person or persons, it must be on the foot of composition or

prescription.—_Id._

And if they be denied where due, they are recoverable in the spiritual

court. And, in the time of Archbishop Whitgift, they were declared upon

a full hearing to be spiritual profits, and as such to belong to the

keeper of the spiritual see vacant.—_Id._

Constitutions made in the provincial or diocesan synods were also

sometimes called synodals, and were in many cases required to be

published in the parish churches: in this sense the word frequently

occurs in the ancient directories.

TABERNACLE. Among the Hebrews, a kind of building, in the form of a

tent, set up by the express command of GOD, for the performance of

religious worship, sacrifices, &c. (Exod. xxvi., xxvii.)

TABERNACLES, FEAST OF. A solemn festival of the Hebrews, observed after

harvest, on the fifteenth day of the month Tisri, instituted to

commemorate the goodness of GOD, who protected the Israelites in the

wilderness, and made them dwell in booths when they came out of Egypt.

The _pyx_, or box in which the reserved host is placed on Romish altars,

is called in the Missal the _Tabernacle_.

TALMUD. (Signifying doctrine.) A collection of the doctrines of the

religion and morality of the Jews. It consists of two parts: 1. The

_Misna_, or text; literally _repetition_: that is, a repetition or

supplement to the Divine law; which they pretend was delivered to Moses

on the mount, and transmitted from him to the members of the Sanhedrim.

2. The _Gemara_, (perfection, or completion,) which is the commentary.

The origin of this work is as follows:—

Judah the Holy had no sooner completed the _Misna_, but one Rabbi Chun,

jealous of his glory, published quite contrary traditions; a collection

of which was made under the title of _Extravaganta_, and inserted with

the _Misna_, in order to compose one and the same body of law.

Notwithstanding that the collection made by Judah seemed to be a

complete work, yet two considerable faults were observed in it: one,

that it was very confused, the author having reported the opinions of

different doctors, without naming them, and determining which of these

opinions deserved the preference: the other, (which rendered this body

of canon law almost useless,) that it was too short, and resolved but a

small part of the doubtful cases and questions that began to be agitated

among the Jews.

To remedy these inconveniences, Jochanan, with the assistance of Rab and

Samuel, two disciples of Judah the Holy, wrote a commentary upon their

master’s work. This is called the Talmud of Jerusalem; either because it

was composed in Judea, for the use of the Jews that remained in that

country, or because it was written in the common language spoken there.

The Jews are not agreed about the time that this part of the _Gemara_,

which signifies _Perfection_, was made. Some believe it was two hundred

years after the destruction of Jerusalem; others reckon but a hundred

and fifty; and maintain that Rab and Samuel, quitting Judea, went to

Babylon, in the two hundred and nineteenth year of the Christian era.

However, these are the heads of the second order of doctors, called

Gemarists, because they composed the Gemara. (See _Gemara_.)

There was also a defect in the Jerusalem Talmud, for it contained the

opinions of but a small number of doctors. For this reason the

Gemarists, or commentators, began a new explication of the traditions.

Rabbi Asa, who kept a school at Sora, near Babylon, where he taught

forty years, produced a commentary upon Judah’s Misna. He did not finish

it; but his sons and scholars put the last hand to it. This is called

the Gemara, or Talmud, of Babylon, which is preferred before that of

Jerusalem. It is a very large collection, containing the traditions, the

canon law of the Jews, and all the questions relating to the Law.

In these two Talmuds is contained the whole of the Jewish religion as it

is now possessed by that people, who esteem it equal with the law of

GOD. Some Christians set a great value upon it, whilst others condemn it

as a detestable book, and full of blasphemies; but a third sort observe

a just medium between these opposite opinions.

Though the Talmud was received with general applause by the Jews, yet

there started up a new order of doctors, who shook its authority by

their doubts. These were called Sebarim, or opiniative doctors, and were

looked upon by the Jews as so many sceptics, because they disputed

without coming to a determination upon anything.

TARGUM. So the Jews call the Chaldee paraphrases, or expositions, of the

Old Testament in the Chaldee language; for the Jewish doctors, in order

to make the people understand the text of the Holy Scripture, (after the

captivity,) which was read in Hebrew in their synagogues, were forced to

explain the law to them in a language they understood; and this was the

Chaldean, or that used in Assyria.

The Targums that are now remaining were composed by different persons,

upon different parts of Scripture, and are in number eight.

1. The Targum of Onkelos upon the five books of Moses.

2. The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, upon the Prophets, that is, upon

Joshua, Judges, the two Books of Samuel, the two Books of Kings, Isaiah,

Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets.

3. The Targum ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, upon the Law.

4. The Jerusalem Targum, upon the Law.

5. The Targum on the five lesser books, called the Megilloth, that is,

Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, and the Lamentations of

Jeremiah.

6. The second Targum upon Esther.

7. The Targum of Joseph the Blind, upon the Book of Job, the Psalms, and

the Proverbs.

8. The Targum upon the First and Second Books of Chronicles.

Upon Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, there is no Targum at all. Indeed, a

great part of Daniel and Ezra is written originally in Chaldee; and

therefore there was no need of a Chaldee paraphrase upon them: but

Nehemiah is written wholly in the Hebrew tongue, and no doubt anciently

there were Chaldee paraphrases upon all the Hebrew parts of those books,

though they are now lost.

The Targum of Onkelos is, without doubt, the most ancient that is now

extant. He was certainly older than Jonathan Ben Uzziel, the author of

the second Targum, who is supposed to have lived in our SAVIOUR’S time,

and who could have no reason to omit the Law in his paraphrase, but that

he found Onkelos had done this work with success before him. No Chaldee

writing, now extant, comes nearer the style of what is written in that

language by Daniel and Ezra, than the Targum of Onkelos, which is a good

argument for its antiquity. It is rather a version than a paraphrase;

for the Hebrew text is rendered word for word, and for the most part

with great exactness.

The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, upon the Prophets, is next to that of

Onkelos in the purity of its style, but not in the manner of its

composure; for Jonathan takes the liberty of a paraphrast, by enlarging

and adding to the text, and by inserting several stories and glosses of

his own, which are no reputation to the work. The Jews not only give him

the preference to all the disciples of Hillel, but equal him even to

Moses himself.

The Targum ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, upon the Law, is none of

his, as appears by the style. Who was the true author of it, or when it

was composed, is utterly unknown. It seems to have lain long in

obscurity among the Jews themselves; for no notice was taken of it till

it was published at Venice, about a hundred and fifty years since; and

the name of Jonathan, it is probable, was prefixed to it for no other

reason than to give it the more credit, and the better to recommend it

by that specious title.

The Jerusalem Targum, upon the Law, was so called, because it was

written in the Jerusalem dialect. There were three dialects of the

Chaldean language. The first was spoken in Babylon, the metropolis of

the Assyrian empire. The second was the Commagenian, or Antiochian,

being that spoken in Commagena, Antioch, and the rest of Syria. The

third was the Jerusalem dialect, which was spoken by the Jews after the

captivity. The Babylonian and Jerusalem dialects were written in the

same character; but the Antiochian was in a different, and is the same

with what we call the Syriac. The purest style of the Jerusalem dialect

is, first, in the Targum of Onkelos, and next, in that of Jonathan; but

the Jerusalem Targum is written in a most barbarous style, intermixed

with a great many foreign words, taken from the Greek, Latin, and

Persian languages. This Targum is not a continued paraphrase, but only

upon some parts here and there, as the author thought the text most

wanted an explication; and sometimes whole chapters are omitted. It was

written by an unknown hand, and probably some time after the third

century.

The fifth Targum, which is that on the Megilloth, and the sixth, which

is the second Targum on the book of Esther, are written in the corrupted

Chaldee of the Jerusalem dialect; but the author of these is unknown.

The seventh, which is upon Job, the Psalms, and the Prophets, is equally

corrupt, and said to be written by Joseph the Blind, who is as unknown

as the author of the other two. The second Targum on Esther is twice as

large as the first, and seems to have been written the last of all the

Targums, by reason of the barbarity of its style. There is also a third

Targum on Esther. The first Targum upon Esther is a part of the Targum

upon Megilloth, which makes mention of the Babylonish Talmud, and

therefore must have been written after the year of CHRIST 500. The last

Targum, upon the First and Second Books of Chronicles, was not known

till the year 1680, when Beckius, from an old manuscript, published, at

Augsburg in Germany, that part which is upon the First Book; the

paraphrase upon the Second he published three years afterwards, at the

same place.

TE DEUM LAUDAMUS. (“We praise Thee, O God,” &c.) This sublime

composition has been referred to several different authors. Some have

ascribed it to Ambrose and Augustine, others to Ambrose alone; others,

again, to Abondius, Nicetius, bishop of Triers, or Hilary of Poictiers.

In truth, it seems that there is no way of determining exactly who was

the author of this hymn. Archbishop Usher found it ascribed to Nicetius,

in a very ancient Gallican Psalter, and the Benedictine editors of the

works of Hilary of Poictiers cite a fragment of a manuscript epistle of

Abbo Floriacensis, in which Hilary is unhesitatingly spoken of as its

author; but Abbo lived five or six centuries after that prelate, and

therefore such a tradition is most doubtful. Some reasons, however,

appear to justify the opinion, that Te Deum was composed in the Gallican

Church, from which source we also derive the inestimable creed bearing

the name of Athanasius. The most ancient allusions to its existence are

found in the Rule of Cæsarius, bishop of Arles, who lived in the fifth

century, and in that of his successor Aurelian. It has been judged from

this, that the Te Deum may probably have been composed by some member of

the celebrated monastery of Lerins, which was not far from Arles; or

perhaps by Hilary of Arles, who seems to have composed the Athanasian

Creed in the fifth century. Another presumption in favour of the same

notion is deducible from the wording of this hymn. The verse,

“Vouchsafe, O LORD, to keep us this day without sin,” (“Dignare, Domine,

die isto sine peccato nos custodire,”) gives reason to think that it was

originally composed for the matin, and not for the nocturnal office, for

it appears that the day is supposed to have actually commenced. Now

Cæsarius and Aurelian both appoint Te Deum to be sung in the morning,

while Benedict directed it to be sung in the nocturnal office on

Sundays; and thence we may observe that the former appear to have

adhered closer to the intentions of the author of this hymn than the

latter: that therefore they were better acquainted with the author’s

design than Benedict; and therefore the hymn was probably not composed

in Italy, but in Gaul.

In the office of matins this hymn occupies the same place as it always

has done, namely, after the reading of Scripture. The ancient offices of

the English Church gave this hymn the title of the “Psalm Te Deum,” or

the “Song of Ambrose and Augustine,” indifferently. As used in this

place, it may be considered as a responsory psalm, since it follows a

lesson; and here the practice of the Church of England resembles that

directed by the Council of Laodicea, which decreed that the psalms and

lessons should be read alternately.

In the Roman office it is only used on Sundays and certain festivals;

but even on these omitted at certain seasons of the year. In the Church

of England it is prescribed for daily use; but the _Benedicite_ may be

substituted for it.

TEMPLARS, TEMPLERS, or KNIGHTS OF THE TEMPLE. A religious order

instituted at Jerusalem, in the beginning of the twelfth century, for

the defence of the holy sepulchre, and the protection of Christian

pilgrims. They were first called _the Poor of the Holy City_, and

afterwards assumed the appellation of _Templars_, because their house

was near the temple. The order was founded by Baldwin II., then king of

Jerusalem, with the concurrence of the pope; and the principal articles

of their rule were, that they should hear the holy office throughout

every day; or that, when their military duties should prevent this, they

should supply it by a certain number of Paternosters; that they should

abstain from flesh four days in the week, and on Friday from eggs and

milk meats; that each knight might have three horses and one squire, and

that they should neither hunt nor fowl. After the ruin of Jerusalem,

about 1186, they spread themselves through Germany, and other countries

of Europe, to which they were invited by the liberality of the

Christians. In the year 1228, this order acquired stability by being

confirmed in the Council of Troyes, and subjected to a rule of

discipline drawn up by St. Bernard. In every nation they had a

particular governor, called Master of the Temple, or of the Militia of

the Temple. Their grand-master had his residence at Paris. The order of

Templars flourished for some time, and acquired, by the valour of its

knights, immense riches, and an eminent degree of military renown. But

as their prosperity increased, their vices were multiplied; and their

arrogance, luxury, and cruelty rose at last to such a great height, that

the order was suppressed in 1312.

TEMPLE. In the Bible, this title generally refers to that house of

prayer which Solomon built in Jerusalem, for the honour and worship of

GOD. The name of temple is now properly used for any church or place of

worship set apart for the service of Almighty GOD. Thus the services of

the Church are frequently introduced by the words, “The LORD is in his

holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him.” Here, by the

word “temple,” allusion is made to the church in which we have met

together to offer our prayers and praises to the MOST HIGH.

The church called the Temple Church in London, was built by the

Knights-Templars in 1185: and the circular vestibule was built after the

fashion of the church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem: as also the

church of the Holy Sepulchre at Cambridge, and a few others.

TERMINATOR. A sort of master of the ceremonies in some of the cathedrals

of Sicily.—_Pini’s Sicilia Sacra._

TERRIER. By Canon 87, the archbishops and all bishops within their

several dioceses shall procure (as much as in them lies) a true note and

terrier of all the glebes, lands, meadows, gardens, orchards, houses,

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

parishes, which belong to any parsonage, vicarage, or rural prebend, to

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

of the bishop, whereof the minister to be one; and to be laid up in the

bishop’s registry, there to be for a perpetual memory thereof. It may be

convenient also to have a copy of the same exemplified, to be kept in

the church chest.

These terriers are of greater authority in the ecclesiastical courts,

than they are in the temporal; for the ecclesiastical courts are not

allowed to be courts of record; and yet even in the temporal courts

these terriers are of some weight, when duly attested by the registrar.

Especially if they be signed, not only by the parson and churchwardens,

but also by the substantial inhabitants; but if they be signed by the

parson only, they can be no evidence for him; so neither (as it seemeth)

if they be signed only by the parson and churchwardens, if the

churchwardens are of his nomination. But in all cases they are certainly

strong evidence against the parson. (See _Burn_, _Eccl. Law_, under this

head, for the form of a terrier, which is given at great length. It is,

however, merely an inventory of the matters enumerated in the

above-quoted canon.)

TERSANCTUS. The Latin title of the hymn in the liturgy, beginning “With

Angels and Archangels,” &c. This celebrated anthem is probably the most

ancient and universally received of all Christian songs of praise. Its

position in the established liturgies has always been (as in the Prayer

Book) a little antecedent to the prayer of consecration; and the hymn

itself does not appear in any other office than that of the Communion.

The antiquity of the _Tersanctus_, and its prevalence in the liturgies

of the Eastern and Western Churches, naturally lead to the conclusion

that it was derived from the apostolic age, if not from the apostles

themselves. It is remarked by Palmer, that no liturgy can be traced to

antiquity, in which the people did not unite with the invisible host of

heaven in chanting these sublime praises of the Most High GOD. From the

testimony of Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem, we find that the

seraphic hymn was used in the liturgy of Antioch and Jerusalem in the

fourth century. The Apostolical Constitutions enable us to carry it back

to the third century in the East. It is also spoken of by Gregory

Nyssen, Cyril of Alexandria, Origen, Hilary of Poictiers, Isidore, and

other Fathers, as having formed a part of the liturgy. In the liturgy of

Milan it has been used from time immemorial, under the name of

_Trisagion_; in Africa we learn from Tertullian, that it was customarily

used in the second century. As has already been observed, (see

_Preface_,) the preface ends just before the words “Holy, holy, holy:”

and the congregation or choir ought not to audibly join their voices

with the priest till this hymn begins.

TESTAMENT, THE OLD AND THE NEW. The title of the Old Testament is given

to those books which the Hebrews received as sacred and inspired before

the coming of our LORD, in order to distinguish them from those sacred

books which contain the doctrines, precepts, and promises of the

Christian religion, which are distinguished by the appellation of the

New Testament. The appellation of _Testament_ is derived from 2 Cor.

iii. 6, 14, in which place the word ἡ Παλαιὰ Διαθήκη and ἡ Καινὴ

Διαθήκη, are by the old Latin writers rendered _Antiquum Testamentum_

and _Novum Testamentum_. Although the appellation of New Testament is

not given by Divine command to the writings of the evangelists and

apostles, yet it was adopted in a very early age, (according to Bishop

Marsh, in the second century). The title “New Covenant” signifies the

book which contains the terms of the New Covenant, upon which GOD is

pleased to offer salvation to mankind, through the mediation of JESUS

CHRIST. But the word _Testament_ seems to have been preferred, as

implying that the Christian’s redemption is sealed to him as a son and

heir of GOD; and because the death of CHRIST as testator is related at

large and applied to our benefit. (See _Canon of Scripture_, _Bible_,

_Scripture_.)

TESTIMONIAL. A testimonial of good conduct from his college, or from

three beneficed clergymen, required of every one that seeks to be

admitted into holy orders, is among the safeguards which the Church has

appointed for the purity of her ministry. The testimonial is directed to

the bishop to whom application is made for orders, and is as follows:

“Whereas our well-beloved in CHRIST, A. B., hath declared to us his

intention of offering himself as candidate for the sacred office of [a

deacon], and for that end hath requested of us letters testimonial of

his learning and good behaviour; we, therefore, whose names are hereunto

subscribed, do testify that the said A. B., having been previously known

to us for the space of [three] years last past, hath during that time

lived piously, soberly, and honestly, and diligently applied himself to

his studies; nor hath he at any time, so far as we know or believe,

held, written, or taught anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline

of the united Church of England and Ireland: and, moreover, we believe

him in our consciences to be a person worthy to be admitted to the

sacred order of [deacons]. In witness whereof,” &c.

It is needless to add, that no conscientious man can sign such a

document, without well weighing its terms, and the solemnity of the

occasion on which it is required.

The apostle having laid it down as a standing canon in the Church, that

“a bishop must be blameless, and have a good report of them that are

without,” (1 Tim. iii. 2, 7,) thence the Church of GOD has, in all ages,

taken especial care to require a sufficient satisfaction, that all

persons who are to be admitted into that or any other inferior order of

the clergy, have such a good report for a pious and virtuous

conversation. This Tertullian mentions as a very singular honour of the

Christian priesthood. In pursuance of which practice of the ancient

Church, our Church of England has forbidden the bishop to admit any

person into sacred orders, “except he shall then exhibit letters

testimonial of his good life and conversation, under the seal of some

college in Cambridge or Oxford, where before he remained, or of three or

four grave ministers, together with the subscription and testimony of

other credible persons, who have known his life and behaviour by the

space of three years next before.”—_Can._ 33. The same is further

provided for by our statute law: “None shall be made minister, unless he

first bring to the bishop of that diocese, from men known to the bishop

to be of sound religion, a testimonial both of his honest life, and of

his professing the doctrine expressed in the said articles,” 13 Eliz.

chap. xii.—_Dr. Nicholls._

Such as sign these testimonials have it put into their power to discover

evil men, and commend only those that are worthy: wherefore, since so

great a trust is reposed in them, they ought never to sign any

testimonial which they know to be false; yea, which they do not know to

be true; lest they become guilty of bearing false witness, and mislead

the bishop, who cannot see all things with his own eyes, nor hear all

with his own ears, and so must rely on others to direct his choice. And

let him be ever so desirous to keep out wicked pastors, an hypocrite

commended by eminent hands may deceive him; and then the dishonour of

GOD and mischief to souls, which are the sad consequence of such

misinformation, are to be charged only upon those who, for fear, favour,

or negligence, signed the false certificate; who deserve a severe

punishment in this world, if our law did allow it: however, they shall

certainly answer for it in the next world. And I heard a most reverend

and worthy prelate (Archbishop Dolben) charge his clergy, “not to impose

upon him by signing testimonials which they did not know to be true, as

they would answer it to him at the dreadful day of judgment.” Which

being duly considered will, I hope, prevent that evil custom of giving

men’s hands, out of custom or compliment, to mere strangers, or to

oblige a friend that we know doth not deserve it.—_Dean Comber._

A sham testimonial of life and manners, doth not only deceive the bishop

in a point of the nicest concernment, both with regard to his office and

his reputation, but does an injury to the Church itself, and affects the

interests and credit of the ministry at large. And therefore, to attest

worthy characters of unworthy persons, in order to bring them into a

situation where they may expose themselves and their functions, do

public mischief, and give open scandal, is destitute of any justifiable

pretence; and I wish I could add it were equally destitute of any

precedent.

I must acknowledge that human respects, and solicitations of

acquaintance, and other mere social regards, are great temptations with

people of kind dispositions, to too easy a compliance in granting this

favour; and such persons may be sometimes drawn into the signing of

testimonials, when their judgment doth not concur with their good

nature. I am loth to blame any friendly or neighbourly qualities, yet

sometimes they do deserve blame, as in this case in particular; where

they are the occasions of a mischief which much better qualities cannot

repair, or make sufficient amends for.—_Archdeacon Sharp._

TEXT. The letter of the sacred Scriptures, more especially in the

original languages. In a more limited sense, the word _text_ is used for

any short sentence out of the Scripture, quoted in proof of a dogmatic

position,—as an auctoritee, as it was formerly called,—or taken as the

subject or motto of a discourse from the pulpit. Thus Chaucer has—

“He needeth not to speken but of game,

And let _auctorites_ in GODDES name

To preching, and to scole eke of clergie.”

And so a sermon is called “_Expositio auctoritatis_.”

The custom of taking a text for a sermon is probably coeval with that of

preaching set discourses; and it is needless to remark, that the use of

texts as authority in doctrinal points is of the very essence of true

theology, and was ever the custom even of those who, professing the name

of _Christians_, denied the truth of CHRIST. Even the most abominable

and shameless heretics quoted Scripture for their worst tenets. A simple

Christian, therefore, may well be on his guard against receiving

everything for which a text is quoted, remembering that the “inspired

writings are an inestimable treasure to mankind, for so many sentences,

so many truths. But then the true sense of them must be known;

otherwise, so many sentences, so many authorized falsehoods.”

THANKSGIVING. Giving of thanks is an essential part of Divine worship,

as St. Paul expressly declares to St. Timothy, (1 Tim. ii. 1,) and has

ever formed a part of the service both of Jews and Christians. In our

own Book of Common Prayer there are many forms of thanksgiving,

particular and general: as especially the general thanksgiving, which

was added (being composed, as is conjectured, by Bishop Sanderson) at

the last review, and appointed for daily use; and the eucharistic hymn,

always used in the holy communion, sometimes with an appropriate

preface, and introduced with the versicles,

“Let us give thanks unto our LORD GOD.

“It is meet and right so to do.

“It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should at all

times and in all places give thanks,” &c.

But there are, besides, particular thanksgivings appointed for

deliverance from drought, rain, famine, war, tumult, and pestilence; and

there is an entire service of thanksgiving for women after child-birth,

(see _Churching of Women_,) and certain days on which we commemorate

great deliverances of our Church and nation, are marked also with a

solemn service of thanksgiving. (See _Forms of Prayer_.)

THANKSGIVING, THE GENERAL. The general thanksgiving may perhaps, to

some, appear superfluous, after we have thanked and praised GOD in the

use of the psalms and hymns. But it was inserted at the Restoration,

because others complained it was wanting.—_Abp. Secker._

After the general intercession, there follows likewise a general

thanksgiving. For though in the psalms and hymns after the lessons, with

the several doxologies interspersed, we have everywhere “set forth GOD’S

most worthy praise,” yet it seemed meet also, in a distinct and

appropriate form of thanksgiving, “to render thanks for the great

benefits we have received at his hands,” which, according to the first

exhortation, we therefore do, beginning with that original blessing,

“our creation,” then “preservation,” attended with all these secondary

benefits and “blessings of life,” “but above all,” because the greatest

of all, “our redemption,” attended with all “the means of grace and hope

of glory,” thus ascending gradually through the long scale of blessings

received at GOD’S hand, from temporal to spiritual, from the first to

the last, from our coming forth to our returning to him again.—_Dr.

Bisse._

Indeed, this is a more methodical summary of the several mercies of GOD

“to us and to all men,” than we had before: it furnishes an opportunity

of thanking him more expressly for the late instances of his

loving-kindness to the members of our own congregation; and besides, as

we cannot be too thankful to GOD, the acknowledgments, which we offered

up at the beginning of the service, are very properly repeated at the

end. For surely we ought to ask nothing of GOD, without remembering what

we have received from him: which naturally excites both our faith and

resignation, and prepares the way for that admirable collect, with which

we conclude.—_Abp. Secker._

After enumerating the blessings for which we return our humble and

hearty thanks, the form from eucharistic becomes petitionary. We beseech

GOD to make us truly sensible of his mercies, and really thankful for

them, that we may show our gratitude, and promote his glory, not only by

celebrating his praises day by day in the public assemblies of the

Church, but by walking in the paths of holiness and righteousness all

our lives. These petitions we enforce through the merits of JESUS

CHRIST; and we conclude the whole with a doxology, in which we ascribe

to the SON, with the FATHER and the HOLY GHOST, all honour and glory,

world without end. Amen.—_Shepherd._

THEOLOGAL. An officer in some foreign cathedrals, generally a canon,

often a dignitary, whose business it was to profess theology.

THEOLOGY, (From Θεὸς, _God_, and λόγος, _a discourse_.) A discourse

concerning GOD, it being the business of this science to treat of the

Deity. The heathens had their theologues or divines, as well as the

Christians; and Eusebius and Augustine distinguished the theology of the

heathens into three sorts: first, the fabulous and poetical; secondly,

natural, which was explained by philosophy and physics; the third was

political or civil, which last consisted chiefly in the solemn service

of the gods, and in the belief which they had in oracles and

divinations, together with the ceremonies wherewith their worship was

performed.

Divinity among the Christians is divided into positive and scholastical;

the first being founded upon fact and institution, having the

Scriptures, councils, and Fathers for its bottom and foundation, and,

properly speaking, this is true divinity: the other, called

scholastical, is principally supported by reason, which is made use of

to show, that the Christian theology contains nothing inconsistent with

natural light; and with this view it is that Thomas Aquinas makes use of

the authority of philosophers, and arguments from natural reason,

because he was engaged with philosophers, who attacked the Christian

religion with arguments from those topics.

THEOPHORI. (Θεὸς and φέρω.) See _Christophori_.

THOMAS’S, ST., DAY. A festival of the Christian Church observed on the

21st of December, in commemoration of St. Thomas the apostle.

THOMAS, ST., CHRISTIANS OF, who are of the Chaldæan and Nestorian sect,

notwithstanding the several attempts made to reform them, remain firm to

their ancient customs, and if they sometimes comply with the Popish

missionaries, it is but in outward appearance: when they are desired to

submit to the Church of Rome, they answer, that as St. Peter was chief

of that Church, so St. Thomas was head of theirs, and both Churches were

independent one of another, and they stand stedfast in acknowledging the

patriarch of Babylon, without minding the pope: they hold, as Moreri

relates, Nestorius’s opinion, receive no images, and do not much

reverence the cross. They hold that the souls of saints do not see GOD

before the day of judgment. They allow three sacraments, viz. baptism,

orders, and the eucharist: but even in these they do not agree, there

being several forms of baptism in the same Church: they abhor auricular

confession; and for their consecration make use of small cakes, made

with oil and salt; the wine they use is nothing but water in which they

steep raisins: they observe no age for orders, but make priests at

seven, eighteen, twenty, &c., who may marry as often as their wives die.

They administer no sacrament without their fees or reward, and, as for

marriage, they make use of the first priest they meet with. They have

all an extraordinary respect for the patriarch of Babylon, chief of the

Nestorians, and cannot abide to hear the pope named in their churches,

where, for the most part, they neither have curate nor vicar, but the

eldest presides: it is true they go to mass on Sundays, not that they

think themselves obliged in conscience to do so, or that they would sin

mortally if they did not. Their children, unless it be in case of

sickness, are not baptized till the fiftieth day. At the death of

friends, the kindred and relations keep an eight days’ fast in memory of

the deceased: they observe the times of Advent and Lent, the festivals

of our LORD, and many of the saints’ days, those especially that relate

to St. Thomas, the Dominica in Albis, or Sunday after Easter, in memory

of the famous confession which St. Thomas on that day made of CHRIST,

after he had been sensibly cured of his unbelief; another on the 1st of

June, celebrated not only by Christians, but by Moors and Pagans. The

people who come to his sepulchre on pilgrimage, carry away a little of

the red earth of the place where he was interred, which they keep as an

inestimable treasure, and believe it to be a sovereign remedy against

diseases: their priests are shaven in fashion of a cross; but Simon does

not charge them with so many errors as Meneses does, from whom this

account is taken.

THRONE. The bishop’s principal seat in his cathedral. At St. Paul’s the

bishop has two thrones; that at the end of the stalls probably

representing the episcopal throne, properly so called, which he assumed

at the more solemn part of the service; that more westerly his ordinary

seat, or stall. In old times the bishop of London often occupied the

stall usually assigned to the dean, as is still the custom at Ely and

Carlisle. The bishop’s throne in the ancient basilicas and churches was

at the apex of the apsis, a semicircle behind the altar. The marble

chair of the archbishop at Canterbury, in which he is enthroned,

formerly occupied a place behind the altar; a remnant of the old

arrangement, as appears from Darl’s Canterbury. The cumbrous pew

occupied by the doctors and university officers at St. Mary’s,

Cambridge, is called the throne.

THUNDERING LEGION. (See _Legion_.)

THURIFICATI. In times of persecution Christians who were brought to be

examined before the heathen tribunal, were permitted to escape

punishment by casting frankincense on an altar dedicated to an idol.

This was of course an act of idolatry, and amounted to open and

unreserved apostasy: some however there were who were betrayed into this

act by present fear, rather than a real wish to deny CHRIST, and who

sought afterwards, by a rigid penance, the peace of the Church. These

were called _Thurificati_. (See _Libellatici_ and _Sacrificati_.)

TIARA. The name of the pope’s triple crown. The tiara and keys are the

badges of the papal dignity, the tiara of his civil rank, and the keys

of his jurisdiction; for as soon as the pope is dead, his arms are

represented with the tiara alone, without the keys. The ancient tiara

was a round high cap. John XIII. first encompassed it with a crown;

Boniface VIII. added a second crown; and Benedict XIII. a third.

TILES. The use of ornamented tiles in churches is at least as old as the

Norman æra, and was never discontinued till the fall of Gothic art. A

very valuable paper on the arrangement of tiles, by Lord Alwyne Compton,

will be found in the first number of the collected papers of the

Northamptonshire and other architectural societies.

TIPPET. In the 74th canon, in which decency in apparel is enjoined to

ministers, it is appointed that “All deans, masters of colleges,

archdeacons, and prebendaries, in cathedral and collegiate churches,

(being priests or deacons,) doctors in divinity, law, and physic,

bachelors in divinity, masters of arts, and bachelors of law, having any

ecclesiastical living, shall usually wear gowns with standing collars

and sleeves straight at the hands, or wide sleeves, as is used at the

universities, with hoods or _tippets_ of silk or sarsenet, and square

caps.” And that all other ministers admitted, or to be admitted, into

that function shall also usually wear the like apparel as is aforesaid,

except tippets only. (See “The Tippets of the Canons Ecclesiastical,” by

G. I. French, London, 1850.) And in the 58th canon: “It shall be lawful

for such ministers as are not graduates to wear upon their surplices,

instead of hoods, some decent _tippet_ of black, so it be not silk.” See

Mr. Gilbert French’s ingenious treatise on the Tippets of the Canons

Ecclesiastical: from which it would appear that the present black scarf

worn by some of the English clergy represents three things: 1. The

stole; 2. the chaplain’s scarf; 3. the choir tippet. The chaplain’s

scarf is a remnant of the ancient badges, or liveries, worn by the

members of noblemen’s households, their chaplains included. The choir

tippet grew out of the ancient almutium, or amice, that is, a vesture

which covered the shoulders, and included the hood: the _liripipium_, or

pendent part of the hood, sometimes hanging singly behind, (as in our

modern hoods,) sometimes in duplicate before, like the scarf. In process

of time the hood became separated from this pendent part in front, and

hence the choir tippet. It is certain that the tippet so called, often

made of sables or furs, was worn in the form of the scarf, by

dignitaries of the Church and State for many ages in England. The

_scarf_ has been called a _tippet_ immemorially in Ireland, and within

memory in many parts of England. The law of the Church therefore seems

to be this, that all ecclesiastics (whether priests _or deacons_) being

prebendaries or of higher rank in cathedral and collegiate churches, and

all priests _or deacons_ being Masters of Arts or of higher degree, may

wear either hoods or _tippets of silk_: and _all_ non-graduate ministers

(whether priests _or deacons_) may not wear hoods, but only _tippets_

not of silk. Whence the tippet is to be worn by all clergymen. The 58th

canon however is explicit as to the use of hoods by graduates. By the

constant usage of cathedrals, both hood and scarf are worn by all

capitular graduates.—_Jebb._

TITHES, in the religious application of the phrase, is a certain

portion, or allotment, for the maintenance of the priesthood, being the

tenth part of the produce of land, cattle, or other branches of wealth.

It is an income, or revenue, common both to the Jewish and Christian

priesthood.

The priests among the Jews had no share allowed them in the division of

the land, that they might attend wholly upon Divine service, and not

have their thoughts diverted by the business of tillage, or feeding

cattle, or any other secular employment. Their maintenance arose chiefly

from the first-fruits, offerings, and tithes.

The ancient Christians, it is generally thought, held the _Divine right

of tithes_, that is, that the payment of tithes was not merely a

ceremonial or political command, but of moral and perpetual obligation;

though Bellarmine, Selden, and others place them upon another foot. St.

Jerome says expressly, that the law about tithes (to which he adds

first-fruits) was to be understood to continue in its full force in the

Christian Church. And both Origen and St. Augustine confirm the same

opinion.

But why, then, were not tithes exacted by the apostles at first, or by

the fathers in the ages immediately following? For it is generally

agreed, that tithes were not the original maintenance of ministers under

the gospel. It is answered, first, that tithes were paid to the priests

and Levites, in the time of CHRIST and his apostles; and the synagogue

must be buried, before these things could be orderly brought into use in

the Church. Secondly, in the times of the New Testament, there was an

extraordinary maintenance, by a community of all things; which supplied

the want of tithes. Thirdly, paying tithes, as the circumstances of the

Church then stood, could not conveniently be practised; for this

requires that some whole state or kingdom profess Christianity, and the

Church be under the protection of the magistrates; which was not the

case in the apostolical times. Besides, the inhabitants of the country,

from whom the tithes of fruits must come, were the latest converts to

Christianity.

The common opinion is, that tithes began first to be generally settled

upon the Church in the fourth century, when the magistrates protected

the Church, and the empire was generally converted from heathenism. Some

think Constantine settled them by a law upon the Church; but there is no

law of that emperor’s now extant, that makes express mention of any such

thing. However, it is certain tithes were paid to the Church before the

end of the fourth century, as Mr. Selden has proved out of Cassian,

Eugippius, and others. The reader may see this whole matter historically

deduced, through many centuries, by that learned author.

The custom of paying tithes, or offering a tenth of what a man enjoys,

is not so peculiar to the Jewish and Christian law, but that we find

some traces of it even among the heathens. Xenophon has preserved an

inscription upon a column near a temple of Diana, whereby the people

were admonished to offer the tenth part of their revenues every year to

the goddess. And Festus assures us, the ancients gave tithe of

everything to their gods.

Before the promulgation of the law, Abraham set the example of paying

tithes, in giving the tenth of the spoils to Melchisedech, king of

Salem, at his return from his expedition against Chedorlaomer and the

four confederate kings. And Jacob imitated the piety of his grandfather

in this respect, when he vowed to the LORD the tithe of all the

substance he might acquire in Mesopotamia. (See _Revenues,

Ecclesiastical_.)

TITLE. (See _Orders_.) Canon 33. “It has been long since provided by

many decrees of the ancient Fathers, that none should be admitted,

either deacon or priest, who had not first some certain place where he

might use his function: according to which examples we do ordain, that

henceforth no person shall be admitted into sacred orders, except (1.)

he shall at that time exhibit to the bishop, of whom he desireth

imposition of hands, a presentation of himself to some ecclesiastical

preferment then void in the diocese; or (2.) shall bring to the said

bishop a true and undoubted certificate, that either he is provided of

some church within the said diocese where he may attend the cure of

souls, or (3.) of some minister’s place vacant either in the cathedral

church of that diocese, or in some other collegiate church therein also

situate, where he may execute his ministry; or (4.) that he is a fellow,

or in right as a fellow, or (5.) to be a conduct or chaplain in some

college in Cambridge or Oxford; or (6.) except he be a Master of Arts of

five years’ standing, that liveth of his own charge in either of the

universities; or (7.) except by the bishop himself that doth ordain him

minister, he be shortly after to be admitted either to some benefice or

curateship then void. And if any bishop shall admit any person into the

ministry that hath none of these titles, as is aforesaid, then he shall

keep and maintain him with all things necessary, till he do prefer him

to some ecclesiastical living; and if the said bishop refuse so to do,

he shall be suspended by the archbishop, being assisted with another

bishop, from giving of orders by the space of a year.” The same rules

apply to the Irish portion of the united Church.

TOBIT, THE BOOK OF. An apocryphal book of Scripture, so called. Tobit,

whose history is related therein, was of the tribe of Nephthali, and one

of those whom Salmanassar, king of Assyria, carried away captive, when

he took Samaria, and destroyed the kingdom of Israel. This happened in

the fourth year of the reign of Hoshea, king of Israel, and the sixth of

Hezekiah, king of Judah. The tribe of Nephthali was indeed carried away

before by Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria; but this was not a general

captivity, there being several still left behind.

The Book of Tobit was written in Chaldee, by some Babylonian Jew, and

seems, in its original draught, to have been the memoirs of the family

to which it relates, first begun by Tobit, then continued by Tobias, and

finished by some other of the family; and afterward digested by the

Chaldee author into that form in which we now have it. It was translated

out of the Chaldee into Latin by St. Jerome, and his translation is that

which we have in the Vulgar Latin edition of the Bible. But there is a

Greek version much ancienter than this, from which was made the Syriac

version, and also that which we have in English among the apocryphal

writers, in our Bible. But the Chaldee original is not now extant. The

Hebrew copies of this book, as well as of that of Judith, seem to be of

a modern composition. It being easier to settle the chronology of this

book than that of the Book of Judith, it has met with much less

opposition from learned men, and is generally looked upon, both by Jews

and Christians, as a genuine and true history; though, as to some

matters in it, (particularly that of the angel’s accompanying Tobias, in

a long journey, under the shape of Azarias, the story of Raguel’s

daughter, the frightening away of the devil by the smoke of the heart

and liver of a fish, and the curing of Tobit’s blindness by the gall of

the same fish,) it is much less reconcilable to a rational credibility.

These things look more like poetical fictions than the writings of a

sacred historian, and afford an objection against this book, which does

not lie against the other.

This book is very instructive, full of religious and pious thoughts, and

written in a plain, natural, and easy style. Tobit lived an hundred and

two years; lost his sight at fifty-six years of age, and recovered it in

the sixtieth. Before his death, he foretold the destruction of Nineveh,

which happened under Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus, that is, under

Astyages and Nabopalasar.

TOLERATION. Johnson defines this word as “the allowance given to that

which is not approved.” The Church, as the depository and dispenser of

religious truth, cannot bring within the range of its theory the

allowance of that which it holds to be error. The Church of England

holds (see _Art._ VI.) that it is not to be required of any man, that

anything should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought

requisite or necessary to salvation, which is not read in Holy

Scripture, nor may be proved thereby. But if any man profess what is

clean contrary to that which the Church has laid down as an article of

the faith, then, in the Church’s view, he professes what is contrary to

the Scripture, and there can be no warrant for allowing that which is

contrary to the Scripture. The Church, however, while refusing any

allowance to error, may refrain from denunciation and persecution of

those who profess and maintain erroneous doctrines; and in this respect

the Church of England is conspicuously more charitable than the Church

of Rome: that Church, which dares not venture to say that she requires

nothing to be believed but that which may be found in Holy Scripture, or

may be proved thereby, nevertheless, wherever she has the power,

punishes those who refuse assent to her theories, and makes them

personally answerable for the heterodoxy of their principles. Such is

not the practice of the Church of England.

The State or political government in England, admits toleration, in the

sense of the word as defined by Johnson. Although the Church is united

with the State, and the State must be held to approve of the doctrines

of the Church, yet it allows, and to a certain extent supports,

religious teaching which the Church holds to be erroneous. Whether this

be done upon the principle that the State does not hold itself competent

to decide between truth and error in religion, but acts merely as the

head of a community, in which a variety of conflicting doctrines are

maintained, or whether it be done upon the ground of expediency, or what

Dr. Paley calls “general utility,” (see his “Moral Philosophy,” book vi.

ch. x.,) it is not necessary here to inquire.

Previously to the year 1688, the statute law (see 35 Eliz. and 22 Car.

II. c. 1) forbade the public exercise of other religions than that of

the Church of England. But the statute of 1 W.& M. c. 18, commonly

called the Toleration Act, recognised and admitted the public profession

of the religion of Protestant Dissenters, (except those who denied the

doctrine of the TRINITY,) while it confirmed all the severities, then

upon the statute book, against the religion of Papists. This act,

however, did not relieve Dissenters from the operation of the

Corporation Act, 13 Car. II. c. 1, nor from that of the Test Act, 25

Car. II. c. 2. These acts, which made it necessary that all members of

the corporations of towns, and all persons holding office under the

Crown, should receive the sacrament of the LORD’S supper according to

the usage of the Church of England, continued in force until the year

1828, when they were repealed by the 9 Geo. IV. c. 17.

By the Toleration Act of 1 W. & M. c. 18, it was provided, that no law

or statute of the realm, made against Papists or Popish recusants,

should extend to persons dissenting from the Church of England, who

should take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and make and

subscribe the declaration against Popery.