discussion of the many questions which have been raised on this subject,
and argued in so many distinct treatises, it may be sufficient generally
to observe, that the church of Christ being a visible and permanent
society, bound to observe certain rites, and to obey certain rules, the
existence of government in it is necessarily supposed. All religious
rites suppose order, all order direction and control, and these a
directive and controlling power. Again: all laws are nugatory without
enforcement, in the present mixed and imperfect state of society; and
all enforcement supposes an executive. If baptism be the door of
admission into the church, some must judge of the fitness of candidates,
and administrators of the rite must be appointed; if the Lord’s Supper
must be partaken of, the times and the mode are to be determined, the
qualifications of communicants judged of, and the administration placed
in suitable hands; if worship must be social and public, here again
there must be an appointment of times, an order, and an administration;
if the word of God is to be read and preached, then readers and
preachers are necessary; if the continuance of any one in the fellowship
of Christians be conditional upon good conduct, so that the purity and
credit of the church may be guarded, then the power of enforcing
discipline must be lodged some where. Thus government flows necessarily
from the very nature of the institution of the Christian church; and
since this institution has the authority of Christ and his Apostles, it
is not to be supposed, that its government was left unprovided for; and
if they have in fact made such a provision, it is no more a matter of
mere option with Christians whether they will be subject to government
in the church, than it is optional with them to confess Christ by
becoming its members. The nature of this government, and the persons to
whom it is committed, are both points which we must briefly examine by
the light of the Holy Scriptures. As to the first, it is wholly
spiritual:--“My kingdom,” says our Lord, “is not of this world.” The
church is a society founded upon faith, and united by mutual love, for
the personal edification of its members in holiness, and for the
religious benefit of the world. The nature of its government is thus
determined; it is concerned only with spiritual objects. It cannot
employ force to compel men into its pale; for the only door of the
church is faith; to which there can be no compulsion;--“he that
believeth and is baptized” becomes a member. It cannot inflict pains and
penalties upon the disobedient and refractory, like civil governments;
for the only punitive discipline authorized in the New Testament, is
comprised in “admonition,” “reproof,” “sharp rebukes,” and, finally,
“excision from the society.” The last will be better understood, if we
consider the special relations in which true Christians stand to each
other, and the duties resulting from them. They are members of one body,
and are therefore bound to tenderness and sympathy; they are the
conjoint instructers of others, and are therefore to strive to be of
“one judgment;” they are brethren, and they are to love one another as
such, that is, with an affection more special than that general good
will which they are commanded to bear to all mankind; they are therefore
to seek the intimacy of friendly society among themselves, and, except
in the ordinary and courteous intercourse of life, they are bound to
keep themselves separate from the world; they are enjoined to do good
unto all men, but “especially to them that are of the household of
faith;” and they are forbidden “to eat” at the Lord’s table with immoral
persons, that is, with those who, although they continue their Christian
profession, dishonour it by their practice. With these relations of
Christians to each other and to the world, and their correspondent
duties, before our minds, we may easily interpret the nature of that
extreme discipline which is vested in the church. “Persons who will not
hear the church” are to be held “as Heathen men and publicans,” as those
who are not members of it; that is, they are to be separated from it,
and regarded as of “the world,” quite out of the range of the above
mentioned relations of Christians to each other, and their correspondent
duties; but still, like “Heathen men and publicans” they are to be the
objects of pity, and general benevolence. Nor is this extreme discipline
to be hastily inflicted before “a first and second admonition,” nor
before those who are “spiritual” have attempted “to restore a brother
overtaken by a fault;” and when the “wicked person” is “put away,” still
the door is to be kept open for his reception again upon repentance. The
true excommunication of the Christian church is therefore a merciful and
considerate separation of an incorrigible offender from the body of
Christians, without any infliction of civil pains or penalties. “Now we
command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye
withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not
after the tradition which ye have received from us,” 2 Thess. iii, 6.
“Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump,” 1 Cor.
v, 7. “But now I have written to you not to keep company, if any man
that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater,
or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one, no not
to eat,” 1 Cor. v, 11. This then is the moral discipline which is
imperative upon the church of Christ, and its government is criminally
defective whenever it is not enforced. On the other hand, the
disabilities and penalties which established churches in different
places have connected with these sentences of excommunication, have no
countenance at all in Scripture, and are wholly inconsistent with the
spiritual character and ends of the Christian association.
7. As to the _persons_ to whom the government of the church is
committed, it is necessary to consider the composition, so to speak, of
the primitive church, as stated in the New Testament. A full enunciation
of these offices we find in Ephesians iv, 11: “And he gave some,
Apostles; and some, Prophets; and some, Evangelists; and some, pastors
and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the
ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” Of these, the office
of Apostle is allowed by all to have been confined to those immediately
commissioned by Christ to witness the fact of his miracles, and of his
resurrection from the dead, and to reveal the complete system of
Christian doctrine and duty; confirming their extraordinary mission by
miracles wrought by themselves. If by “prophets” we are to understand
persons who foretold future events, then the office was from its very
nature extraordinary, and the gift of prophecy has passed away with the
other miraculous endowments of the first age of Christianity. If, with
others, we understand that these prophets were extraordinary teachers
raised up until the churches were settled under permanent qualified
instructors; still the office was temporary. The “Evangelists” are
generally understood to be assistants of the Apostles, who acted under
their especial authority and direction. Of this number were Timothy and
Titus; and as the Apostle Paul directed them to ordain bishops or
presbyters in the several churches, but gave them no authority to ordain
successors to themselves in their particular office as Evangelists, it
is clear that the Evangelists must also be reckoned among the number of
extraordinary and temporary ministers suited to the first age of
Christianity. Whether by “pastors and teachers” two offices be meant, or
one, has been disputed. The change in the mode of expression seems to
favour the latter view, and so the text is interpreted by St. Jerom, and
St. Augustine; but the point is of little consequence. A pastor was a
teacher, although every teacher might not be a pastor; but in many cases
his office might be one of subordinate instruction, whether as an
expounder of doctrine, a catechist, or even a more private instructer of
those who as yet were unacquainted with the first principles of the
Gospel of Christ. The term _pastor_ implies the duties both of
instruction and of government, of feeding and of ruling the flock of
Christ; and, as the presbyters or bishops were ordained in the several
churches, both by the Apostles and Evangelists, and rules are left by
St. Paul as to their appointment, there can be no doubt but that these
are the “pastors” spoken of in the Epistle to the Ephesians, and that
they were designed to be the permanent ministers of the church; and that
with them both the government of the church and the performance of its
leading religious services were deposited. Deacons had the charge of the
gifts and offerings for charitable purposes, although, it appears from
Justin Martyr, not in every instance; for he speaks of the weekly
oblations as being deposited with the chief minister, and distributed by
him. These pastors appear to have been indifferently called BISHOPS and
PRESBYTERS, and with them the regulation of the churches was, doubtless,
deposited; not without checks and guards, the principal of which,
however, was, in the primitive church, and continues to be in all modern
churches which have no support from the magistracy, or are made
independent of the people by endowments, the voluntariness of the
association. A perfect religious liberty is always supposed by the
Apostles to exist among Christians; no compulsion of the civil power is
any where assumed by them as the basis of their advices or directions;
no binding of the members to one church, without liberty to join
another, by any ties but those involved in moral considerations, of
sufficient weight, however, to prevent the evils of faction and schism.
It was this which created a natural and competent check upon the
ministers of the church; for being only sustained by the opinion of the
churches, they could not but have respect to it; and it was this which
gave to the sound part of a fallen church the advantage of renouncing,
upon sufficient and well-weighed grounds, their communion with it, and
of kindling up the light of a pure ministry and a holy discipline, by
forming a separate association, bearing its testimony against errors in
doctrine, and failures in practice. Nor is it to be conceived, that, had
this simple principle of perfect religious liberty been left unviolated
through subsequent ages, the church could ever have become so corrupt,
or with such difficulty and slowness have been recovered from its fall.
This ancient Christian liberty has happily been restored in a few parts
of Christendom. See EPISCOPACY and PRESBYTERIANISM.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND and IRELAND is that established by law in England and
Ireland, where it forms a part of the common law of the land, or
constitution of the country.
1. When and by whom Christianity was first introduced into Britain,
cannot at this distance of time be exactly ascertained. Eusebius,
indeed, positively declares that it was by the Apostles and their
disciples; Bishops Jewel and Stillingfleet, Dr. Cave, and others, insist
that it was by St. Paul; and Baronius affirms, on the authority of an
ancient manuscript in the Vatican Library, that the Gospel was planted
in Britain by Simon Zelotes, the Apostle, and Joseph of Arimathea; and
that the latter came over A. D. 35, or about the twenty-first year of
Tiberius, and died in this country. According to Archbishop Usher, the
British churches had a school of learning in the year 182, to provide
them with proper teachers; and it would appear that they flourished,
without dependence on any foreign church, till the arrival of Austin the
monk, in the latter part of the sixth century.
2. Episcopacy was early established in this country; and it ought to be
remembered, to the honour of the British bishops and clergy, that during
several centuries they withstood the encroachments of the see of Rome.
Popery, however, was at length introduced into England, and, as some
say, by Austin, the monk; and we find its errors every where prevalent
during several ages preceding the reformation, till they were refuted by
Wickliffe. The seed which Wickliffe had sown ripened after his death,
and produced a glorious harvest. However, it was not till the reign of
Henry VIII, that the reformation in England in reality commenced. When
Luther declared war against the pope, Henry wrote his treatise on the
seven sacraments against Luther’s book, “Of the Captivity of Babylon,”
and was repaid by the pontiff with the title of “Defender of the Faith.”
This title, in a sense diametrically opposite, and by a claim of higher
desert, was transmitted by Henry with his crown, and now belongs to his
successors. Henry’s affections being estranged from his queen Catharine,
and fixed on Anne Boleyn, he requested a divorce from his wife; but the
pope hesitating, the archbishop of Canterbury annulled his former
marriage. The sentence of the archbishop was condemned by the pope,
whose authority Henry therefore shook off, and was declared by
parliament “supreme head of the church.” In the year 1800, when the
kingdoms of Britain and Ireland were united, the churches of England and
Ireland, which had always been the same in government, faith, and
worship, became one united church.
3. The acknowledged standards of the faith and doctrines of the united
church are, after the Scriptures, the Book of Homilies and the
Thirty-nine Articles. Her liturgy is also doctrinal, as well as
devotional. The homilies were composed by Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley,
men of unexceptionable learning and orthodoxy; or, according to others,
the first book was written principally by Cranmer, and the second by
Jewel. They were appointed to be read in churches at the beginning of
the reformation, when, by reason of the scarcity of learned divines, few
ministers were found who could safely be trusted to preach their own
compositions. The first draught of the Articles was composed by
Archbishop Cranmer, assisted by Bishop Ridley, in the year 1551; and
after being corrected by the other bishops, and approved by the
convocation, they were published in Latin and English in 1553, and
amounted to forty-two in number. In 1562 they were revised and
corrected. Being then reduced to thirty-nine, they were drawn up in
Latin only; but in 1571 they were subscribed by the members of the two
houses of convocation, both in Latin and English; and therefore the
Latin and English copies are to be considered as equally authentic. The
original manuscripts, subscribed by the houses of convocation, were
burned in the fire of London; but Dr. Bennet has collated the oldest
copies now extant, in which it appears that there are no variations of
any importance. During the last century, disputes arose among the clergy
respecting the propriety of subscribing to any human formulary of
religious sentiments. Parliament, in 1772, was applied to for the
abolition of the subscription, by certain clergymen and others, whose
petition received the most ample discussion, but was rejected by a large
majority. It has been generally held by most, if not all, Calvinists,
both in and out of the church, that the doctrinal parts of our Articles
are Calvinistic. This opinion, however, has been warmly controverted. It
is no doubt nearer the truth to conclude that the Articles are framed
with comprehensive latitude; and that neither Calvinism nor Arminianism
was intended to be exclusively established. In this view such liberal
sentiments as the following, from the _Apology of the Church of
England_, in 1732, are not of uncommon occurrence: “This, I know, I am
myself an Anti-Calvinian; and yet, were I to compile articles for the
church, I would abhor the thoughts of forming them so fully according to
my own scheme of thinking, or of descending so minutely into all the
particular branches of it, that none but Arminians should be able to
subscribe, or that the church should lose the credit and service of such
valuable men as the Abbots, Davenant, Usher, and other Calvinists
undoubtedly were. And since our reformers were men of temper and
moderation, it seems but justice, I am sure it is but reasonable, to
think they intended such a latitude as I contend for, so that both
parties, the followers of Arminius as well as of Calvin, might
subscribe.” In a subsequent page, however, the same author says, “But
what, if there was not so entire a harmony among the compilers or
imposers, as was before supposed? What if several of them were
Anti-Calvinian? This will incline the balance still more in our favour,
and enlarge the probability of _the articles being drawn up in a
moderate, indefinite way_. The divines who fled for refuge, in Queen
Mary’s reign, to Geneva, Zurich, and other places beyond sea, (where, by
conceiving a great veneration for Calvin, they were mightily changed in
their sentiments and ways of thinking,) began to propagate his notions
soon after their return in the next reign: and this seems to have been
the prime occasion of Calvinism taking any considerable root in this
kingdom. In King Edward’s time it doth not appear to have prevailed,
except among a few ‘gospelers,’ and how they were reflected on by Bishop
Latimer and Hooper has been already observed. When the articles were
formed in 1552, I do not find that any deference was paid to Calvin’s
judgment or authority: instead of that, the assistance he offered was,
to his no little grief and dissatisfaction, refused. Next to the
Scriptures and the doctrine of the primitive church, the compilers had
an eye to the Augustan Confession, as appears from the identity of many
of the articles; to the writings of Melancthon, whose assistance they
desired, and whom King Edward invited over hither; the works of Erasmus;
and the _Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man_. This
last book was published by King Henry’s authority in 1543; and because
it then had the approbation of most of those who compiled the Articles
nine years afterward, it will be of consequence to see how it stands
affected toward Calvinism. It teaches the cardinal point of universal
redemption in several places; which strikes directly at the root of the
Calvinian system, and, as Dr. Whitby expresses it, ‘draws all the rest
after it, on which side soever the truth lies.’” This judicious
amplitude has received much elucidation in Dr. Puller’s _Moderation of
the Church of England considered_, 1679; and in other works of more
recent date.
4. In this church, divine service is conducted by a liturgy, which was
composed in 1547, and has undergone several alterations, the last of
which took place in 1661, in the reign of Charles II. Many applications
have been since made for a review; and particular alterations were
proposed in 1689, by several learned and excellent divines, in the
number of whom were Archbishops Tillotson and Tenison, and Bishops
Patrick, Burnet, Stillingfleet, Kidder, &c. This subject has been
recently revived; and it is believed that some changes are under
consideration. To this liturgy every clergyman promises at his
ordination to conform in his public ministrations.
5. Ever since the reign of Henry VIII, the sovereigns of England have
been styled “supreme heads of the church,” as well as “defenders of the
faith;” but this title is said to convey no spiritual meaning; or, in
other words, it only substitutes the king in place of the pope, with
respect to temporalities, and the external economy of the church. The
church of England is governed by two archbishops and twenty-four
bishops, beside the bishop of Sodor and Man. The benefices of the
bishops were converted by William the Conqueror into temporal baronies;
and, therefore, all of them, except the bishop of Man, are barons or
lords of parliament, and sit and vote in the house of lords, where they
represent the clergy. The bishops’ representatives and assistants are
the archdeacons, of whom there are sixty in England. The other
dignitaries of the church are the deans, prebendaries, canons, &c; and
the inferior clergy are the rectors, vicars, and curates. The united
church knows only three orders of ministers; bishops, priests, and
deacons: but in these orders are comprehended archbishops, bishops,
deans, archdeacons, rectors, vicars, and curates. The church of Ireland
is governed by four archbishops and eighteen bishops. Since the union of
Britain and Ireland, one archbishop and three bishops sit alternately in
the house of peers, by rotation of sessions.
CILICIA, a country in the south-east of Asia Minor, and lying on the
northern coast, at the east end of the Mediterranean Sea: the capital
city thereof was Tarsus, the native city of St. Paul, Acts xxi, 39.
CINNAMON, קינמון, an agreeable aromatic; the inward bark of the
_canella_, a small tree of the height of the willow. It is mentioned,
Exodus xxx, 23, among the materials in the composition of the holy
anointing oil; and in Proverbs vii, 17; Canticles iv, 14; Ecclesiasticus
xxiv, 15; and Revelation xviii, 13, among the richest perfumes. This
spice is now brought from the east Indies; but as there was no traffic
with India in the days of Moses, it was then brought, probably, from
Arabia, or some neighbouring country. We learn, however, from Pliny,
that a species of it grew in Syria.
CINNEROTH, or CINNERETH, a city on the north-western side of the sea of
Galilee; which, from it, is frequently called in the Old Testament the
sea of Cinneroth: from which word, that of Genesaret, in the New
Testament, is conjectured by Dr. Wells to have been framed.
CIRCUMCISION is from the Latin, _circumcidere_, “to cut all round,”
because the Jews, in circumcising their children, cut off after this
manner the skin which covers the prepuce. God enjoined Abraham to use
circumcision, as a sign of his covenant. In obedience to this order,
Abraham, at ninety-nine years of age, was circumcised: also his son
Ishmael, and all the males of his property, Gen. xvii, 10. God repeated
the precept of circumcision to Moses: he ordered that all who were to
partake of the paschal sacrifice should receive circumcision; and that
this rite should be performed on children, on the eighth day after their
birth. The Jews have always been very exact in observing this ceremony,
and it appears that they did not neglect it when in Egypt. But Moses,
while in Midian with Jethro his father-in-law, did not circumcise his
two sons born in that country; and during the journey of the Israelites
in the wilderness, their children were not circumcised. Circumcision was
practised among the Arabians, Saracens, and Ishmaelites. These people,
as well as the Israelites, sprung from Abraham. Circumcision was
introduced with the law of Moses among the Samaritans and Cutheans. The
Idumeans, though descended from Abraham and Isaac, were not circumcised
till subdued by John Hircanus. Those who assert that the Phenicians were
circumcised, mean, probably, the Samaritans; for we know, from other
authority, that the Phenicians did not observe this ceremony. As to the
Egyptians, circumcision never was of general and indispensable
obligation on the whole nation; certain priests only, and particular
professions, were obliged to it. Circumcision is likewise the ceremony
of initiation into the Mohammedan religion. There is, indeed, no law in
the Koran which enjoins it, and they have the precept only in tradition.
They say that Mohammed commanded it out of respect to Abraham, the head
of his race. They have no fixed day for the performance of this rite,
and generally wait till the child is five or six years of age.