PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. (continued 22)

Part of the prophecy of Jeremiah relates to the time after the captivity of Israel, and before that of Judah, from the first chapter to the forty-fourth; and part of it was in the time of the latter captivity, from the forty-fourth chapter to the end. The prophet lays open the sins of the kingdom of Judah with great freedom and boldness, and reminds them of the severe judgments which had befallen the ten tribes for the same offences; he passionately laments their misfortune, and recommends a speedy reformation to them. Afterwards he predicts the grievous calamities that were approaching, particularly the seventy years’ captivity in Chaldea. He likewise foretells their deliverance and happy return, and the recompence which 406Babylon, Moab, and other enemies of the Jews, should meet with in due time. There are likewise several intimations in this prophecy concerning the kingdom of the Messiah; also several remarkable visions and types, and historical passages relating to those times.

The fifty-second chapter does not belong to the prophecy of Jeremiah, which concludes, at the end of the fifty-first chapter, with these words: “Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.” The last, or fifty-second chapter, (which probably was added by Ezra,) contains a narrative of the taking of Jerusalem, and of what happened during the captivity of the Jews in Babylon, to the death of Jechonias. St. Jerome has observed upon this prophet, that his style is more easy than that of Isaiah and Hosea; that he retains something of the rusticity of the village where he was born; but that he is very learned and majestic, and equal to those two prophets in the sense of his prophecy.

JESUITS, or the SOCIETY OF JESUS. A society which, at one period, extended its influence to the very ends of the earth, and proved the main pillar of the papal hierarchy,—which wormed itself into almost absolute power, occupying the high places, and leading captive the ecclesiastical dictator of the world,—must be an object of some curiosity to the inquisitive mind.

Ignatius Loyola, a native of Biscay, is well known to have been the founder of this, nominally, religious order. He was born in 1491, and became first a page to Ferdinand V., king of Spain, and then an officer in his army. In 1521 he was wounded in both legs at the siege of Pampeluna, when having had leisure to study a book of Lives of the Saints, he devoted himself to the service of the Virgin; and his military ardour becoming metamorphosed into superstitious zeal, he went on a pilgrimage into the Holy Land. Upon his return to Europe, he studied in the universities of Spain, whence he removed into France, and formed a plan for the institution of this new order, which he presented to the pope. But, notwithstanding the high pretensions of Loyola to inspiration, Paul III. refused his request, till his scruples were removed by an irresistible argument addressed to his self-interest: it was proposed that every member should make a vow of unconditional obedience to the pope, without requiring any support from the holy see. The order was, therefore, instituted in 1540, and Loyola appointed to be the first general.

The plan of the society was completed by the two immediate successors of the founder, Lainez and Aquaviva, both of whom excelled their master in ability and the science of government; and, in a few years, the society established itself in every Catholic country, acquiring prodigious wealth, and exciting the apprehensions of all the enemies of the Romish faith.

To Lainez are ascribed the Secreta Monita, or secret instructions of the order; which were first discovered when Christian, duke of Brunswick, seized the Jesuits’ college at Paderborn, in Westphalia, at which time he gave their books and manuscripts to the Capuchins, who found these secret instructions among the archives of their rector. After this, another copy was detected at Prague, in the college of the Jesuits.

The Jesuits are taught to consider themselves as formed for action, in opposition to the monastic orders, who retire from the concerns of the world; and in engaging in all civil and commercial transactions, insinuating themselves into the friendship of persons of rank, studying the disposition of all classes, with a view of obtaining an influence over them, and undertaking missions to distant nations, it is an essential principle of their policy, by every means, to extend the Catholic faith. No labour is spared, no intrigue omitted, that may prove conducive to this purpose.

The constitution of the society is monarchical. A general is chosen for life by deputies from the several provinces. His power is supreme and universal. Every member is at his entire disposal, and is required to submit his will and sentiments to his dictation, and to listen to his injunctions, as if uttered by Christ himself. The fortune, person, and conscience of the whole society are at his disposal, and he can dispense his order not only from the vows of poverty, chastity, and monastic obedience, but even from submission to the pope whenever he pleases. He nominates and removes provincials, rectors, professors, and all officers of the order, superintends the universities, houses, and missions, decides controversies, and forms or dissolves contracts. No member can express any opinion of his own; and the society has its prisons, independent of the secular authority.

There are four classes of members,—the novitiates or probationers, the approved disciples, the coadjutors, and the professors of the four vows. The education of youth was always considered by them as their peculiar province,—aware of 407the influence which such a measure would infallibly secure over another generation: and before the conclusion of the sixteenth century the Jesuits had obtained the chief direction of the youthful mind in every Roman Catholic country in Europe. They had become the confessors of almost all its monarchs, and the spiritual guides of nearly every person distinguished for rank or influence. At different periods they obtained the direction of the most considerable courts, and took part in every intrigue and revolution.

Notwithstanding their vow of poverty, they accumulated, upon various pretences, immense wealth. They claimed exemption from tithes under a bull of Gregory XIII., who was devoted to their interests; and, by obtaining a special licence from the court of Rome to trade with the nations whom they professed to convert, they carried on a lucrative commerce in the East and West Indies, formed settlements in different countries, and acquired possession of a large province in South America, (Paraguay,) where they reigned as sovereigns over some hundred thousand subjects.

Their policy is uniformly to inculcate attachment to the Order, and by a pliant morality to soothe and gratify the passions of mankind, for the purpose of securing their patronage. They proclaim the duty of opposing princes who are inimical to the Catholic faith, and have employed every weapon, every artful and every intolerant measure, to resist the progress of Protestantism.

In Portugal, where the Jesuits were first received, they obtained the direction of the court, which for many years delivered to them the consciences of its princes and the education of the people. Portugal opened the door to their missions, and gave them establishments in Asia, Africa, and America. They usurped the sovereignty of Paraguay, and resisted the forces of Portugal and Spain, who claimed it. The court of Lisbon, and even Rome herself, protested in vain against their excesses. The league in France was, in reality, a conspiracy of the Jesuits, under the sanction of Sixtus V., to disturb the succession to the throne of France. The Jesuits’ college at Paris was the grand focus of the seditions and treasons which then agitated the state, and the ruler of the Jesuits was president of the Council of Sixteen, which gave the impulse to the leagues formed there and throughout France. Matthieu, a Jesuit and confessor of Henry III., was called “the Courier of the League,” on account of his frequent journeys to and from Rome at that disastrous period.

In Germany the society appropriated the richest benefices, particularly those of the monasteries of St. Benedict and St. Bernard. Catherine of Austria confided in them, and was supplanted; and loud outcries were uttered against them by the sufferers in Vienna, in the states of Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, and elsewhere. Their cruelties in Poland will never be forgotten. They were expelled from Abyssinia, Japan, Malta, Cochin, Moscow, Venice, and other places, for their gross misconduct; and in America and Asia they carried devastation and blood wherever they went. The great object of the persecution of the Protestants in Savoy was the confiscation of their property, in order to endow the colleges of the Jesuits. They had, no doubt, a share in the atrocities of the Duke of Alva in the Low Countries. They boasted of the friendship of Catherine de Medicis, who espoused their cause, and under whose influence the massacre of St. Bartholomew was executed. Louis XIV. had three Jesuit confessors, which may explain the revocation of the edict of Nantes.

The Jesuits have been notorious for attempting the lives of princes. The reign of Queen Elizabeth presents a succession of plots. In her proclamation, dated Nov. 15, 1602, she says, that “the Jesuits had fomented the plots against her person, excited her subjects to revolt, provoked foreign princes to compass her death, engaged in all affairs of state, and by their language and writings had undertaken to dispose of her crown.”

Lucius enumerates five conspiracies of the Jesuits against James I. before he had reigned a year. They contrived the Gunpowder Plot. So late as the time of George I. both houses of parliament reported, that the evidence examined by them on the conspiracy of Plunket and Layer had satisfactorily shown that it had for its object the destruction of the king, the subversion of the laws, and the crowning of the Popish pretender; and they state that “Plunket was born at Dublin, and bred up at the Jesuits’ college at Vienna.” Henry III. of France was assassinated by Clement, a Jesuit, in 1589. The Jesuits murdered William, prince of Orange, in 1584. They attempted the life of Louis XV. for imposing silence on the polemics of their order, and were also guilty of innumerable other atrocities.

The pernicious spirit and constitution of this order rendered it early detested by 408the principal powers of Europe; and while Pascal, by his “Provincial Letters,” exposed the morality of the society, and thus overthrew their influence over the multitude, different potentates concurred, from time to time, to destroy or prevent its establishments. Charles V. opposed the order in his dominions: it was expelled in England by the proclamation of James I. in 1604; in Venice, in 1606; in Portugal, in 1759; in France, in 1764; in Spain and Sicily, in 1767, and suppressed and abolished by Pope Clement XIV. in 1775. Our own age has witnessed its revival, and is even now suffering from the increased energy of its members.

JESUITESSES. An order of nuns, who had monasteries in Italy and Flanders. They followed the Jesuit rules; and though their order was not approved at Rome, yet they had several monasteries, where they had a lady abbess, who took the Jesuit vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. They did not confine themselves to their cloisters, but went abroad and preached. They were two English young women, who, by the instigation of Father Gerard, set up this order, intending it for the use of missionaries into England. This order was suppressed by a bull of Pope Urban VIII., A. D. 1630.

JESUS, is the same with the Hebrew name Joshua, or Jehoshua, i. e. Jehovah the Saviour. As the name Jesus was given to the blessed Lord by Divine command, so was the name of the son of Nun changed by Moses from Hoshea, (the Saviour,) to Joshua; he being a type of our blessed Lord. (Num. xiii. 16.) (See Christ, Messiah, Lord.) The name that was given by the Divine command to the Saviour of the world. He is called Christ (anointed), because he was anointed to the mediatorial office, and Jesus (Saviour), because he came to save his people from their sins.

We are to regard him, as he is our Saviour. I will place salvation in Jesus “the Saviour” (Phil. iii. 20),—thus declared by prophecy (Isa. xix. 20), and for this reason so expressly called (Matt. i. 21; Luke i. 31), and the prophecies truly fulfilled (Luke ii. 11; Acts v. 31, xiii. 23), is “the Saviour of the world” (John iv. 42; iii. 17; 1 John iv. 14), “the Saviour of all men” (1 Tim. iv. 10; Luke ix. 56; John xii. 47), who “came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. i. 15; Luke v. 32; Rom. v. 8; 1 John iii. 5), “the Lord and Saviour” (2 Pet. ii. 20; iii. 2), “the captain of their salvation” (Heb. ii. 10). And he is revealed as the only way to salvation thus predicted (Isa. xxxv. 8; xlix. 6; li. 5; lix. 16; lxiii. 1; Joel ii. 32; Matt. i. 21; Acts iv. 12; Heb. ix. 8),—so by himself declared (Matt. xviii. 11; Luke xix. 9),—and by those speaking through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Luke i. 69, with 67; ii. 30, with 26, 27; Acts ii. 21; Eph. ii. 18).

He was sent by God for this purpose (John iii. 17; Acts v. 31, xiii. 23; 1 John iv. 14), and is declared to be “the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb. v. 9; Isa. li. 6, 8),—that “confess” him (Rom. x. 9), “believe on” him (Rom. x. 9; Eph. ii. 8; Acts xvi. 31; x. 43,) and “call on the name of the Lord” (Acts ii. 21),—“to the Jews first” (Rom. i. 16; Isa. xlv. 17; xlvi. 13; lxii. 1, 11; Jer. xxxiii. 15, 16; Zech. ix. 9; Luke i. 69, 77; Acts xi. 19; xv. 11; xiii. 23, 46), “and also to the Greek” (Rom. i. 16),—the Gentiles (Isa. xlv. 22; xlix. 6; li. 5; lii. 10; Luke iii. 6; Acts xxviii. 28; Rom. iii. 29; x. 12; xv. 16; Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11.)

To “that blessed hope” we now look (Tit. ii. 13), through “the righteousness of God and our Saviour” (of our God and Saviour, Gr.) (2 Pet. i. 1),—“our Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Tim. i. 10; Tit. i. 4; iii. 6). Our salvation has been effected by the sacrifice of himself; “in him have we redemption—the forgiveness of sins;” not purchased “with corruptible things,” but with his own “precious blood” (Eph. i. 7; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19), for “he gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim. ii. 6). And thus having made “peace through the blood of his cross,” he has “reconciled both”—Jews and Gentiles—“unto God in one body.” (Col. i. 20; Eph. ii. 16.) (See Bowing at the name of Jesus.) Joshua, the successor of Moses, is called Jesus in our translation of the New Testament, Acts vii. 45, and Heb. iv. 8. Both names are the same in the LXX. and the Greek Testament, Ἰησοῦς.

JEWS. The general name given the descendants of Abraham, though in strictness it originally belonged only to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, with the Levites settled among them, who constituted the kingdom of Judah. It has long been synonymous with Israelites. On their laws and customs the reader must consult the books of Moses. The modern Jews have introduced many very remarkable customs. When any person is buried, his nearest relation keeps the house a week, sitting on the ground all the time, excepting on the sabbath day, when they go to prayers. During this week they do no 409business. The husband and the wife are to lodge asunder; and there come at least ten people, morning and evening, to say the accustomed prayers. They pray for the soul of the person deceased constantly that week. When the week is ended they go to the synagogue, and light up lamps and pray, and promise to give alms for the soul of the deceased. This charitable service is repeated at the end of every month, and every year. It is customary for the son to say every morning and evening the prayer for his father’s or mother’s soul. They believe a paradise, where the blessed enjoy a beatific vision: and a hell for wicked men, in which some shall continue for ever, others only for a time. No Jew, unless a heretic, or nonconformist to their Rabbins’ rules, shall continue in hell above a year. Their creed consists of thirteen articles:—1. There is one God, Creator of all things, all-perfect, all-sufficient. 2. That he is an uncompounded, invisible essence. 3. That he is immaterial. 4. Absolutely eternal. 5. Alone to be worshipped, without any mediators or intercessors. 6. That there have been, and may be, prophets. 7. That Moses was the greatest prophet. 8. That every syllable of the law was given to Moses by inspiration; and that the traditionary expositions of the precepts were entirely a Divine revelation given to Moses. 9. That the law is immutable. 10. That God knows and governs all our actions. 11. That he rewards the observance, and punishes the violation, of his laws. 12. That the Messiah will appear, but that his coming is delayed. 13. That God will raise the dead, and judge all mankind.

They confess to none but God Almighty; and this commonly on Mondays, and Thursdays, and all fast-days: on the great day of expiation they repeat their confessions several times.

There are three sects of them in these times. The greatest and first of these is that of the Rabbanim, who, besides the Scriptures, receive the Talmud. The second is the Caraites, who receive only the Scriptures; and the third is that of the Cuthim, of which there are very few, who admit only the Pentateuch, or books of Moses.—Broughton.

JOB. One of the books in the sacred canon, the first of the poetical books of the Old Testament, and probably the most ancient work that exists in any form. There have been many differences of opinion upon almost all imaginable questions concerning this book, the date, the scene, the author, whether it is to be accounted a narrative of real events, or a Divine allegory, being warmly debated by different critics. That Job is a real person, seems however to be determined by the mention of him with Noah and Daniel, (of whose proper personal existence and history there can be no doubt,) in the fourteenth chapter of Ezekiel. Into the other questions it is less important to enter.

JOHN, ST., BAPTIST’S DAY. This festival, in honour of St. John the Baptist, is observed on the 24th of June.

JOHN, ST., THE EVANGELIST’S DAY. The day appointed for the commemoration of “the beloved disciple.” St. John the evangelist (so called from the Greek term which signifies the messenger of glad tidings) was a Galilean by birth, the son of Zebedee and Salome, the younger brother of James, but not of him who was surnamed the Just, and who was the brother of our Lord. His brother James and he were surnamed by Jesus the Sons of Thunder, for their peculiar zeal and fervency for his honour, which we see manifested in St. John’s sedulous assertions of our Lord’s Divinity. He was the most beloved by our Saviour of all the disciples.

St. John exercised his ministry in Asia Minor, and having excited enemies through preaching the doctrines of Christ, was carried prisoner from Ephesus to Rome, in the year 92. Subsequently to this he was banished to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote his Revelation. He was afterwards recalled from his exile by Nero the emperor, and then returned to Ephesus. His three Epistles were written with reference to some prevailing heresies of the times; and the scope of his Gospel, which was his last work, shows that the apostle had in view the same deniers of the Divinity of the Saviour. He survived till the reign of Trajan, and died at the age of nearly 100 years.

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

JOHN’S, ST., GENERAL EPISTLES. Three canonical books of the New Testament, being letters written by St. John the evangelist. (See the last article.)

The First Epistle of St. John has always been received by the Church as genuine. Though there is neither inscription nor direction, it appears, by the beginning of chap. ii., to be a Catholic or General Epistle, addressed not to one, but many Christians. It is probable he wrote it towards the end of his life, because he mentions the opinion which then prevailed, that the day of judgment was at hand, and Antichrist 410ready to appear. He insists upon the advantages of faith in Christ; he exhorts those to whom he writes not to suffer themselves to be seduced by false teachers; and recommends to them good works, the love of God and our neighbour, purity, and other Christian virtues. This Epistle, for matter and style, is much like the Gospel written by the same apostle.

The two other Epistles which carry his name, have not always been so generally received. On the contrary, some of the ancients were of opinion that they were written by another John, called the Elder, a disciple of the apostle’s, mentioned by Papias. However, Irenæus quotes the second under the name of John, the disciple of our Lord. In truth, the spirit, the sentiments, and style of these two Epistles are not only like, but often the same as the First Epistle; which plainly bespeaks one and the same author.

The Second Epistle of St. John is directed to the elect Lady; by which some understand a lady named Electa; others, only some lady of dignity and distinction; and others, an elect or chosen Church, metaphorically styled Lady. Whoever she be, the apostle congratulates her, because her children led a Christian life. He cautions her likewise to beware of impostors, who denied that Christ was come in the flesh.

The Third Epistle of St. John is directed to Gaius, or Caius. Whoever he be, (for it is controverted,) the apostle declares to him the joy he conceived, when he heard of his piety and charity.

It is probable St. John wrote his Epistles, as well as his Gospel, from Ephesus, after his return from the isle of Patmos.

JOHN’S, ST., GOSPEL. A canonical book of the New Testament, being a recital of the life, actions, doctrine, death, &c., of our Saviour Jesus Christ, written by St. John the apostle and evangelist. (See the preceding article.)

St. John wrote his Gospel at Ephesus, after his return from the isle of Patmos, at the desire of the Christians and bishops of Asia. St. Jerome says, he would not undertake it, but on condition they should appoint a public fast, to implore the assistance of God; and that, the fast being ended, St. John, filled with the Holy Ghost, broke out into these words; “In the beginning was the Word,” &c. The ancients assign two reasons for this undertaking. The first is, because, in the other three Gospels, there was wanting the history of the beginning of Jesus Christ’s preaching till the imprisonment of John the Baptist; which therefore he applied himself particularly to relate. The second reason was, in order to confound the errors of the Cerinthians, Ebionites, and other heretics, who denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Some critics have thought, that St. John’s Gospel ended at the 20th chapter with these words, “Many other signs truly did Jesus,” &c., and that the following chapter was added, after the death of St. John, by the Church of Ephesus.

Clement of Alexandria calls this Gospel, “the spiritual Gospel;” and St. Jerome says of this evangelist, that he wrote of our Saviour’s Divinity in a very sublime manner, and with a happy temerity. Pagan philosophers have admired the sublimity of St. John’s Gospel. Thus, the Platonist Amelius, having read the beginning of it, and finding it conformable to the doctrine of Plato, cried out, “O Jupiter! this barbarian believes with Plato, that the Word is the beginning.”

Julian the Apostate accuses St. John of introducing novelties into the Christian religion, by making Jesus Christ pass for a God, which neither St. Paul, nor the other evangelists, had dared to do.

It is observable, that the history of the woman taken in adultery, related in the 8th chapter, is not to be found in all the manuscripts of this Gospel. Grotius, and others, believed, that the story was taken from the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and inserted afterwards in that of St. John. Others pretend, that the Novatians had razed it out. But St. Augustine thinks, some good orthodox people had expunged it, lest their wives should make use of it, to prevent that chastisement which their disloyalty might deserve.—Broughton.

JONAH. The most ancient of the prophetic books of the Old Testament, which contains also a part of the history of the prophet whose name it bears. Jonah is supposed to have prophesied to the ten tribes towards the close of Jehu’s reign, or in the beginning of Jehoahaz’s reign; but the great subject of the book which bears his name, is the prophecy which he was commissioned to utter against Nineveh, with his refusal to go, his punishment, his second mission, and the repentance of the Ninevites. The continuing of Jonah three days in the belly of the great fish, is declared by our blessed Lord himself to have been a predictive sign of his own burial, and of his resurrection on the third day. This gives great additional importance to the book of Jonah.—Broughton.

JOSHUA, THE BOOK OF. A canonical 411book of the Old Testament. The learned are divided in their opinions about the author of the Book of Joshua; the title at the head of the book being supposed, not to denote its author, but the subject matter of it, being the history of the wars and transactions which happened under the administration of Joshua. Some think the 26th verse of the last chapter are an evidence, that Joshua was the author of this book: the words are; “Joshua wrote all these words in the book of the law of the Lord.” But this may only relate to what is said in this chapter concerning the covenant that the people made with God. For Joshua, a little before his death, having assembled the Israelites at Sichem, and laid them under a solemn engagement to serve only the Lord, gave them fresh laws and ordinances, and “wrote all these words in the book of the law of the Lord.” Some allege what is said concerning Joshua in the Book of Ecclesiasticus, (ch. xlvi.,) that “he was the successor of Moses in prophecies,” as a proof that he wrote a sacred book. But this may mean no more, than that he succeeded Moses in the spirit of prophecy. The ancient Talmudists, and many of later date, expressly ascribe this book to Joshua, and the Jews reckon him among the first prophets, as they call them, though the book is merely historical.

Some of the ancients, and many of the moderns, deny, that Joshua was the author of this book. Theodoret affirms, that it was compiled a long time after the death of Joshua, and that it was but an abstract of an ancient commentary, called “The Book of Jasher,” or “just men,” spoken of in the tenth chapter of this book. Others have endeavoured to show, from particular passages of the book, that it could not be Joshua’s; as when it is said, (ch. iv. ver. 9,) that “the twelve stones, that Joshua set up in the midst of Jordan, remain to this day:” and, in another place, “This place is called Gilgal to this day.” But these, and the like passages, might have been afterwards added to the collections of Joshua.

However it be, the Hebrews, as well as the Greeks and Latins, have distinguished this book by the title of Joshua, or Jesus. This great personage was the son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim. He was first called Oshea; but Moses changed his name to Jehoshua, or Joshua. These names, which have all the same root, signify a Saviour: and Joshua was appointed by God to be the successor of Moses, and to lead the Israelites in safety, by subduing their enemies, into the promised land; the history of which great event is the subject of the Book of Joshua; which may be divided into three parts. The first is a history of the conquest of the land of Canaan. The second, which begins at the twelfth chapter, is a description of that country, and the division of it among the tribes. The third, comprised in the two last chapters, contains the renewal of the covenant he caused the Israelites to make, and the death of their victorious leader and governor. The whole comprehends a term of seventeen, or, according to others, twenty-seven years.

JUBILATE DEO. (“O be joyful in God.”) One of the psalms appointed to be used after the second lesson in the morning service. It is the same with the 100th Psalm in the Psalter. It was first inserted in the Prayer Book in the Second Book of King Edward VI.

JUBILEE. A solemn season recurring at stated intervals in the Church of Rome, chiefly marked by the indulgences then granted by the pope to all of his communion. Boniface VIII. was the first that instituted it, in 1300, in imitation of that of the Jews, ordering it to be observed every hundredth year. Clement VI. reduced it to fifty, Urban IV. to thirty, and Sixtus IV. to twenty-five, where it hath continued ever since. Besides this, the popes, upon their exaltation to the see of Rome, have frequently celebrated a jubilee, as likewise upon other extraordinary occasions. The ceremony observed at Rome, for the jubilee, at every twenty-five years’ end, which they call the holy year, is this: The pope goes to St. Peter’s church to open the holy gate, (as they call it,) which is walled up, and only opened upon this occasion; and knocking three times at the said gate, with a golden hammer, says these words, Aperite mihi portas justitiæ, &c., “Open to me the gates of righteousness; I will go into them and I will praise the Lord” (Psalm cxviii. 19); whereupon the masons fall to work to break down the wall that stopped the gate; which done, the pope kneels down before it, whilst the penitentiaries of St. Peter wash him with holy water, and then taking up the cross, he begins to sing Te Deum, and enters the church, followed by the clergy. In the mean while, three cardinal legates are sent to open the other three holy gates, with the same ceremonies, which are in the churches of St. John of Lateran, of St. Paul, and St. Mary Major; and the next morning the pope gives his benediction to the people in the jubilee form. When the 412holy year is expired, they shut up the holy gates again on Christmas eve in this manner. The pope, after he has blessed the stones and mortar, lays the first stone, and leaves there twelve boxes full of gold and silver medals.

The Jewish jubilee was celebrated every fifty years. The word is derived from jovel, which in Hebrew signifies the blast of a trumpet, (Josh. vi. 4, 13); because the year of jubilee was proclaimed with trumpets. This year was a year of general rest and universal liberty, wherein all servants were restored to their freedom, and all sold possessions returned to their first owners. The Jews observed these jubilees very exactly till the Babylonian captivity, but after their return did no longer observe it; for their doctors assure us that there were no jubilees under the second temple. See Lev. xxv. 9, et seq.

JUDGES, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book, of the authenticity of which there is no doubt in the Church, though the author is unknown; some ascribing it to Phinehas, others to Ezra or Hezekiah, though most to Samuel.

JUNE THE TWENTIETH. (See Forms of Prayer.)

“JURE DIVINO.” By Divine right; an expression frequently occurring in controversial writings, especially in relation to the ministry of the Church.

It is evident, and generally confessed, that the right to minister in holy things is not in every man’s power. If it were so, the very idea of the ministry, as a distinct class of men, empowered to act “in Christ’s stead,” would be broken up, and the Church would lose its character as a society; for that implies the existence of officers and of subordination. It is also confessed that in the Christian Church men are not born to the ministry, as they were under the Jewish dispensation. Whence, then, comes that authority with which the ambassador of Christ is invested? Is it human? Can any body of men confer the power to rule and minister in a society, the full control of which is in the hands of the eternal God? Most evidently not. Human power, or a commission derived from human resources, is as void and inadequate in qualifying for the functions of the ministry, as it would be in the attempt to create a world, or to found a new rank in the hierarchy of heaven. We are driven then, at once, to the Divine institution as the foundation of all legitimate power in the Church.

The Head of the Church established a ministry, with the right and ability to execute all its appointed functions. It was not intellectual eminence, or high station, or influence, wealth, courage, or any other human attribute, which brought into being “the glorious company of the apostles;” but it was the sovereign power alone of him “in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” And was this power to be recalled on the demise of those who were every day doomed to stripes, imprisonments, perils, and death in a thousand shapes? No; for either the Church for the future must fail, the sacraments be obliterated, the “watching for souls” be abolished, or the continuation of the sacred ministry must be demanded with all its original spiritual functions. To the apostles, therefore, was given, (jure divino,) and to them alone, the ability to perpetuate or transmit the gift which the Redeemer had bestowed. From them the prerogatives of episcopacy (or apostolate) were communicated to younger men, including the transmissive or ordaining faculty. Under these, the elders and deacons were put in trust with a share of the original grant of ministerial power,—a power they were themselves incapable of delegating; and by an unbroken succession, in the line of bishops, the Divine commission has reached these latter days of the Church.

If then, as we have shown, Divine right is the only foundation on which the ministry can stand, there is no alternative left to any one claiming office in the Church of God, but to vindicate the legality of his mission by miracle, or some other tangible Divine verification, which no man can dispute; or else to bring forth such credentials as Timothy, Titus, and the ministers ordained by them had to show, viz. the simple evidence of the fact that the apostles, or their successors, had imparted to them the authority they claim to possess. This every bishop, priest, and deacon, in the Catholic Church, is prepared to do.

JURISDICTION. The power and authority vested in a bishop, by virtue of the apostolical commission, of governing and administering the laws of the Church within the bounds of his diocese. The same term is used to express the bounds within which a bishop exercises his power, i. e. his diocese.

In the Saxon times, before the Norman Conquest, there was no distinction of jurisdiction; but all matters, as well spiritual as temporal, were determined in the county court, called the Sheriff’s Tourn, where the bishop and earl (or in his absence the sheriff) sat together; or else in the hundred court, which was held in like 413manner before the lord of the hundred and ecclesiastical judge.

For the ecclesiastical officers took their limits of jurisdiction from a like extent of the civil powers. Most of the old Saxon bishoprics were of equal bounds with the distinct kingdoms. The archdeaconries, when first settled into local districts, were commonly fitted to the respective counties. And rural deaneries, before the Conquest, were correspondent to the political tithings. Their spiritual courts were held, with a like reference to the administration of civil justice. The synods of each province and diocese were held at the discretion of the metropolitan and the bishop, as great councils at the pleasure of the prince. The visitations were first united to the civil inquisitions in each county; and afterwards, when the courts of the earl and bishop were separated, yet still the visitations were held like the sheriff’s tourns, twice a year, and like them too after Easter and Michaelmas, and still, with nearer likeness, the greater of them was at Easter. The rural chapters were also held, like the inferior courts of the hundred, every three weeks; then, and like them too, they were changed into monthly, and at last into quarterly meetings. Nay, and a prime visitation was held commonly, like the prime folemote or sheriff’s tourn, on the very calends of May.

And accordingly Sir Henry Spelman observes, that the bishop and the earl sat together in one court, and heard jointly the causes of Church and commonwealth; as they yet do in parliament. And as the bishop had twice in the year two general synods, wherein all the clergy of his diocese of all sorts were bound to resort for matters concerning the Church; so also there was twice in the year a general assembly of all the shire for matters concerning the commonwealth, wherein, without exception, all kinds of estates were required to be present, dukes, earls, barons, and so downward of the laity; and especially the bishop of that diocese among the clergy. For in those days the temporal lords did often sit in synods with the bishops, and the bishops in like manner in the courts of the temporality, and were therein not only necessary, but the principal judges themselves. Thus by the laws of King Canute, “the shyre-gemot (for so the Saxons called this assembly of the whole shire) shall be kept twice a year, and oftener if need require, wherein the bishop and the alderman of the shire shall be present, the one to teach the laws of God, the other the laws of the land.” And among the laws of King Henry I., it is ordained, “first, let the laws of true Christianity (which we call the ecclesiastical) be fully executed with due satisfaction; then let the pleas concerning the king be dealt with; and, lastly, those between party and party: and whomsoever the Church synod shall find at variance, let them either make accord between them in love, or sequester them by their sentence of excommunication.” And the bishop first gave a solemn charge to the people touching ecclesiastical matters, opening unto them the rights and reverence of the Church, and their duty therein towards God and the king, according to the word of God: then the alderman in like manner related unto them the laws of the land, and their duty towards God, the king, and commonwealth, according to the rule and tenure thereof.

The separation of the ecclesiastical from the temporal courts was made by William the Conqueror: for upon the conquest made by the Normans, the pope took the opportunity to usurp upon the liberties of the crown of England; for the Conqueror came in with the pope’s banner, and under it won the battle. Whereupon the pope sent two legates into England, with whom the Conqueror called a synod, deposed Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, because he had not purchased his pall from Rome, and displaced many bishops and abbots to make room for his Normans. This admission of the pope’s legates first led the way to his usurped jurisdiction in England; yet no decrees passed or were put in execution, touching matters ecclesiastical, without the royal assent; nor would the king submit himself in point of fealty to the pope, as appears by his epistle to Gregory VII. Yet in his next successor’s time, namely, in the time of King William Rufus, the pope, by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, attempted to draw appeals to Rome, but did not prevail. Upon this occasion it was, that the king said to Anselm, that none of his bishops ought to be subject to the pope, but the pope himself ought to be subject to the emperor; and that the king of England had the same absolute liberty in his dominions, as the emperor had in the empire. Yet in the time of the next king, King Henry I., the pope usurped the patronage and donation of bishoprics, and of all other benefices ecclesiastical. At this time, Anselm told the king, that the patronage and investiture of bishops was not his right, because Pope Urban had lately made a decree, that no lay person should give any ecclesiastical 414benefice. And after this, at a synod held at London, in the year 1107, a decree was made to which the king assented, that from thenceforth no person should be invested in a bishopric by the giving of a ring and pastoral staff (as had been before); nor by any lay hand. Upon which the pope granted that the archbishop of Canterbury for the time being should be for ever legatus natus: and Anselm for the honour of his see obtained, that the archbishop of Canterbury should in all general councils sit at the pope’s foot, as alterius orbis papa, or pope of this part of the world. Yet after Anselm’s death, this same king gave the archbishopric of Canterbury to Rodolph, bishop of London, and invested him with the ring and pastoral staff; and this because the succeeding popes had broken Pope Urban’s promise, touching the not sending of legates into England unless the king should require it. And in the time of the next king, King Stephen, the pope gained appeals to the court of Rome; for in a synod at London, convened by Henry, bishop of Winchester, the pope’s legate, it was decreed, that appeals should be made from provincial councils to the pope: before which time appeals to Rome were not in use. Thus did the pope usurp three main points of jurisdiction, upon three several kings after the Conquest, (for of King William Rufus he could gain nothing,) viz. upon the Conqueror, the sending of the legates or commissioners to hear and determine ecclesiastical causes; upon Henry I., the donation and investiture of bishoprics and other benefices; and upon King Stephen, the appeals to the court of Rome. And in the time of King Henry II., the pope claimed exemption for clerks from the secular power. And finally, in the time of King John, he took the crown from off the king’s head, and compelled him to accept his kingdom from the pope’s donation. Nevertheless all this was not obtained without violent struggle and opposition: and this caused the statutes of provisors to be made, in the reigns of King Edward III. and King Richard II. The limits of ecclesiastical jurisdiction were finally settled by the statute of 24 Henry VIII. c. 12. Jurisdiction is also applied to the power vested in certain dignitaries, as dean, chancellor, &c., in some cathedrals; and in many, when each individual prebendary had a peculiar jurisdiction.

JUSTIFICATION. (See Faith and Sanctification.) Justification, in the language of Scripture, signifies our being accounted just or righteous in the sight of God.—Tomline.

A clear understanding of the difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome upon this subject is most important, since the difference between the two Churches on this point causes an essential and vital difference through the whole system of their theology. The definition of the Church of England is set forth in her Articles and Homilies: and it is there propounded in a manner so perspicuous, as to preclude, it might well be thought, all possibility of misapprehension.

As contained in the eleventh and twelfth and thirteenth Articles, the definition runs in terms following:

“We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith; and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort: as more largely is expressed in the homily of justification.

“Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that, by them, a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree is discerned by the fruit.

“Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the school-authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea, rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.”

The homily referred to in the eleventh Article, under the title of The Homily of Justification, is styled, in the first Book of Homilies itself, “A sermon of the salvation of mankind, by only Christ our Saviour, from sin and death everlasting:” and this homily is described as more largely expressing the doctrine of justification than the necessary brevity of an article admitted. Therefore, obviously, the statement contained in it challenges our especial attention.

“Because all men be sinners and offenders against God, and breakers of his law and commandments; therefore can no man, by his own acts, words, and deeds, (seem they never so good,) be justified and made righteous before God: but every man of 415necessity is constrained to seek for another righteousness of justification, to be received at God’s own hands; that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses in such things as he hath offended. And this justification or righteousness, which we so receive of God’s mercy and Christ’s merits, embraced by faith, is taken, accepted, and allowed, of God, for our perfect and full justification.

“The apostle toucheth specially three things, which must go together in our justification: upon God’s part, his great mercy and grace; upon Christ’s part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of God’s justice, or the price of our redemption by the offering of his body and shedding of his blood, with fulfilling of the law perfectly and thoroughly; and, upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, which yet is not ours but by God’s working in us. So that, in our justification, there is not only God’s mercy and grace, but also his justice, which the apostle calleth the justice of God: and it consisteth, in paying our ransom, and fulfilling of the law. And so the grace of God doth not shut out the justice of God in our justification, but only shutteth out the justice of man, that is to say, the justice of our works, as to be merits of deserving our justification. And therefore St. Paul declareth nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith: which, nevertheless, is the gift of God, and not man’s only work without God. And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying. So that, although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not altogether. Neither doth faith shut out the justice of our good works, necessarily to be done afterwards of duty toward God; for we are most bounden to serve God, in doing good deeds, commanded by him in his Holy Scripture, all the days of our life: but it excludeth them, so that we may not do them to this intent, to be made just by doing of them. For all the good works that we can do, be imperfect; and, therefore, not able to deserve our justification. But our justification doth come freely, by the mere mercy of God, and of so great and free mercy, that, whereas all the world was not able of themselves to pay any part toward their ransom, it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy, without any our desert or deserving, to prepare for us the most precious jewels of Christ’s body and blood; whereby our ransom might be fully paid, the law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied. So that Christ is now the righteousness of all them that truly do believe in him. He, for them, paid their ransom by his death. He, for them, fulfilled the law in his life. So that now, in him and by him, every true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the law; forasmuch as that, which their infirmity lacked, Christ’s justice hath supplied.

“That we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works, we do read ofttimes in the best and most ancient writers: as, beside Hilary, Basil, and St. Ambrose, we read the same in Origen, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, Prosper, Œcumenius, Photius, Bernardus, Anselm, and many other writers, Greek and Latin. Nevertheless, this sentence, that ‘we be justified by faith only,’ is not so meant of them that the said justifying faith is alone in man, without true repentance, hope, charity, dread, and the fear of God, at any time and season. Nor, when they say, that we should be justified freely, do they mean that we should or might afterward be idle, and that nothing should be required on our parts afterward. Neither do they mean so to be justified without good works, that we should do no good works at all. But this saying, that ‘we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works,’ is spoken for to take away clearly all merit of our works, as being unable to deserve our justification at God’s hands, and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of man and the goodness of God, the great infirmity of ourselves and the might and power of God, the imperfection of our own works and the most abundant grace of our Saviour Christ; and therefore wholly to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification unto Christ only, and his most precious blood-shedding. This faith the Holy Scripture teacheth us: this is the strong rock and foundation of the Christian religion: this doctrine all old ancient authors of Christ’s Church do approve: this doctrine advanceth and setteth forth the true glory of Christ, and beateth down the vain glory of man: this whosoever denieth, is not to be accounted for a Christian man, nor for a setter-forth of Christ’s glory, but for an adversary to Christ and his gospel, and for a setter-forth of men’s vain glory.”

The doctrine of the Church of Rome must be taken from the Council of Trent. 416The exposition of the Tridentine fathers, assembled in their sixth session, runs through sixteen chapters; and so extreme is its verboseness, and so perplexing is its incessant alternation, that we might be somewhat puzzled to form a distinct idea of their views in respect to justification, if the last of those chapters had not given us, in the shape of an article or summary, the result of their prolix theologising.

Omitting, then, the discussion upon which their definition is built, we will proceed immediately to the definition itself.

“Since Jesus Christ, as the head into the members and as the vine into the branches, perpetually causes his virtue to flow into the justified; which virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they would in nowise be grateful to God and meritorious; we must believe, that nothing more is wanting to the justified themselves, which need prevent us from thinking, both that they can satisfy the Divine law according to the state of this life, by those works which are performed in God; and that, in their own time, provided they depart in grace, they may truly merit the attainment of eternal life.

“Thus, neither our own proper righteousness is so determined to be our own, as if it were from ourselves; nor is the righteousness of God either unknown or rejected. For that which is called our righteousness, because, through it being inherent in us, we are justified; that same is the righteousness of God, because it is infused into us by God through the merit of Christ.

“Far, however, be it from a Christian man, that he should either trust or glory in himself and not in the Lord; whose goodness to all men is so great, that, what are truly his gifts, he willeth to be estimated as their merits.”

This article or summary removes all possibility of misapprehension. Through it, the Church of Rome determines that we are justified, not by any imputation to us of righteousness, or by any imputation to us of faith in the place of righteousness, (though each of these imputations is insisted upon by St. Paul,) but by our own inherent righteousness.

On this, the Romish system, the judicious Hooker remarks: “When they are required to show, what the righteousness is whereby a Christian man is justified, they answer, that it is a Divine spiritual quality: which quality, received into the soul, doth first make it to be one of them who are born of God; and, secondly, endue it with power to bring forth such works as they do that are born of him: even as the soul of man, being joined to his body, doth first make him to be of the number of reasonable creatures; and, secondly, enable him to perform the natural functions which are proper to his kind: that it maketh the soul amiable and gracious in the sight of God, in regard whereof it is termed Grace; that it purgeth, purifieth, and washeth out, all the stains and pollutions of sins; that, by it, through the merit of Christ, we are delivered, as from sin, so from eternal death and condemnation, the reward of sin. This grace they will have to be applied by infusion; to the end that, as the body is warm by the heat which is in the body, so the soul might be made righteous by inherent grace: which grace they make capable of increase; as the body may be more and more warm, so the soul more and more justified according as grace should be augmented; the augmentation whereof is merited by good works, as good works are made meritorious by it. Wherefore, the first receipt of grace, in their divinity, is the first justification: the increase thereof, the second justification. As grace may be increased by the merit of good works, so it may be diminished by the demerit of sins venial; it may be lost by mortal sin. Inasmuch, therefore, as it is needful, in the one case to repair, in the other to recover, the loss which is made, the infusion of grace hath her sundry after-meals; for the which cause they make many ways to apply the infusion of grace. It is applied to infants through baptism, without either faith or works; and, in them, really it taketh away original sin, and the punishment due unto it: it is applied to infidels and wicked men in the first justification, through baptism, without works, yet not without faith: and it taketh away sins both actual and original together, with all whatsoever punishment, eternal or temporal, thereby deserved. Unto such as have attained the first justification, that is to say, the first receipt of grace, it is applied further by good works to the increase of former grace: which is the second justification. If they work more and more, grace doth more increase: and they are more and more justified. To such as diminish it by venial sins, it is applied by holy water, Ave Marias, crossings, papal salutations, and such like: which serve for reparations of grace decayed. To such as have lost it through mortal sin, it is applied by the sacrament (as they term it) of penance: which sacrament 417hath force to confer grace anew; yet in such sort, that, being so conferred, it hath not altogether so much power as at the first. For it only cleanseth out the stain or guilt of sin committed; and changeth the punishment eternal into a temporal satisfactory punishment—here, if time do serve, if not, hereafter, to be endured; except it be lightened by masses, works of charity, pilgrimages, fasts, and such like; or else shortened by pardon for term, or by plenary pardon quite removed and taken away. This is the mystery of the man of sin. This maze the Church of Rome doth cause her followers to tread, when they ask her the way to justification. Whether they speak of the first or second justification, they make ‘the essence of a Divine quality inherent,’ they make it ‘righteousness which is in us.’ If it be in us, then it is ours: as our souls are ours, though we have them from God, and can hold them no longer than pleaseth him; for, if he withdraw the breath of our nostrils, we fall to dust. But the righteousness, wherein we must be found, if we will be justified, is ‘not our own.’ Therefore we cannot be justified by any inherent quality. The Church of Rome, in teaching justification by inherent grace, doth pervert the truth of Christ: and, by the hands of the apostles, we have received otherwise than she teacheth. Now, concerning the righteousness of sanctification, we deny it not to be inherent: we grant, that, unless we work, we have it not: only we distinguish it, as a thing different in nature from the righteousness of justification. By the one, we are interested in the right of inheriting: by the other, we are brought to the actual possession of eternal bliss. And so the end of both is ‘everlasting life.’”

The difference between the two systems may be pointed out in a few words. The Romish Church teaches that a man is justified by an inherent righteousness, which, though originally a gift of God, as are his soul and his bodily members, is nevertheless, like his soul, his own.

The Anglican Church, on the contrary, in common with all the other Churches of the Reformation, teaches: “that man is justified by an extrinsic righteousness, which is not his own, but the righteousness of Christ; the faith which instrumentally lays hold of it and appropriates it, and which itself is the gift of God, being forensically imputed to him of God, instead of a righteousness which he himself possesses not; so that he is justified through faith, though not on account of faith; the sole particular, on account of which he is justified, being the merit and perfect righteousness of our Lord and only Saviour Jesus Christ.”

Whichever scheme of doctrine may be preferred as most agreeable to Scripture and to antiquity, it is clear, that the two statements here given are at least incapable of misapprehension. Right or wrong, the two schemes stand flatly and diametrically opposed to each other. The Roman Church asserts: the Anglican Church denies. Conversely, the Roman Church denies: the Anglican Church asserts. The Roman Church asserts the doctrine of justification by an infused and personal inherent righteousness: the Anglican Church strenuously denies that doctrine; admitting, indeed, that the inherent righteousness of sanctification is always consequentially present with the really justified; but refusing to it any, even the least, share in “the procurement of justification.” The Roman Church denies, that the ungodly is justified through faith alone, nothing else being required to obtain the grace of justification: the Anglican Church asserts, that the ungodly is justified through faith alone without works, nothing save faith being required to obtain the grace of justification, inasmuch as the office of works is not the procurement of our justification, and inasmuch as it is a contradictory hysteron-proteron to say that works which “follow after” justification, and are its “effect,” can yet “procure” it and be its “cause.”

It has been customary to speak of the doctrine of forensic justification as if it were a Calvinistic doctrine. That Calvin held it is not to be denied, but all history bears witness that it is not a peculiarity of the Calvinistic system.

Calvin was born in 1509, and he was yet a schoolboy, or a pluralist in the Romish Church, (as he became in his twelfth year,) when Luther was using this doctrine, as the doctrine by which to lay low the whole fabric of Romish superstition.

Again, it was the doctrine of our English reformers, as most clearly stated in our Articles and Homilies; and Archbishop Laurence has triumphantly established the historical fact, that our reformers were not Calvinists.

If we wish for a clear statement of the doctrine of forensic justification, we may indeed refer to Bishop Andrewes; and the theology of Andrewes had certainly no affinity to that of Calvin. Let the reader peruse with attention the following passage from his sermon on justification.

418“In the Scripture, then, there is a double righteousness set down, both in the Old and in the New Testament.

“In the Old, and in the very first place that righteousness is named in the Bible: ‘Abraham believed, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.’ A righteousness accounted. And again, in the very next line, it is mentioned, ‘Abraham will teach his house to do righteousness.’ A righteousness done. In the New likewise. The former, in one chapter, even the fourth to the Romans, no fewer than eleven times, Reputatum est illi ad justitiam. A reputed righteousness. The latter in St. John: ‘My beloved, let no man deceive you, he that doeth righteousness is righteous.’ A righteousness done. Which is nothing else but our just dealing, upright carriage, honest conversation. Of these, the latter the philosophers themselves conceived and acknowledged; the other is proper to Christians only, and altogether unknown in philosophy. The one is a quality of the party; the other, an act of the judge declaring or pronouncing righteous. The one ours by influence or infusion, the other by account or imputation. That both these there are, there is no question. The question is, whether of these the prophet here principally meaneth in this Name? This shall we best inform ourselves of by looking back to the verse before, and without so looking back we shall never do it to purpose. There the prophet setteth one before us, in his royal judicial power, in the person of a king, and of a king set down to execute judgment; and this he telleth us, before he thinks meet to tell us his name. Before this king, thus set down in his throne, there to do judgment, the righteousness that will stand against the law, our conscience, Satan, sin, the gates of hell, and the power of darkness; and so stand that we may be delivered by it from death, despair, and damnation; and entitled by it to life, salvation, and happiness eternal; that is righteousness indeed, that is it we seek for, if we may find it. And that is not this latter, but the former only; and therefore that is the true interpretation of Jehovah justitia nostra. Look but how St. Augustine and the rest of the Fathers, when they have occasion to mention that place in the Proverbs, Cum Rex justus sederit in solio, quis potest dicere, Mundum est cor meum?—look how they interpret it then, and it will give us light to understand this name; and we shall see, that no name will serve then, but this name. Nor this name neither, but with this interpretation of it. And that the Holy Ghost would have it ever thus understood, and us ever to represent before our eyes this King thus sitting in his judgment-seat, when we speak of this righteousness, it is plain two ways. 1. By way of position. For the tenor of the Scripture touching our justification all along runneth in judicial terms, to admonish us still what to set before us. The usual joining of justice and judgment continually all along the Scriptures, show it is a judicial justice we are to set before us. The terms of, 1. A judge: ‘It is the Lord that judgeth me.’ 2. A prison: Kept and shut up under Moses. 3. A bar: ‘We must all appear before the bar.’ 4. A proclamation: ‘Who will lay anything to the prisoner’s charge?’ 5. An accuser: ‘The accuser of our brethren.’ 6. A witness: ‘Our conscience bearing witness.’ 7. An indictment upon these: ‘Cursed be he that continueth not in all the words of this law to do them;’ and again, ‘He that breaketh one is guilty of all.’ A conviction that all may be ὑπόδικοι, ‘guilty’ or culpable ‘before God.’ Yea, the very delivering of our sins under the name of ‘debts;’ of the law under the name of a ‘handwriting;’ the very terms of ‘an advocate,’ of ‘a surety made under the law;’ of a pardon, or ‘being justified from those things which by the law we could not:’—all these, wherein for the most part this is still expressed, what speak they but that the sense of this name cannot be rightly understood, nor what manner of righteousness is in question, except we still have before our eyes this same coram rege justo judicium faciente.”—Bishop Andrewes’ Sermon on Justification in Christ’s Name. See also Barrow’s Sermon on Justification. Waterland on Justification. Heurtley on Justification. Stanley Faber on Justification.

KEYS, POWER OF THE. The authority existing in the Christian priesthood of administering the discipline of the Church, and communicating or withholding its privileges; so called from the declaration of Christ to St. Peter, (Matt. xvi. 19,) “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” The power here promised was afterwards conferred on St. Peter and the other apostles, when the Saviour breathed on them and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever 419sins ye retain, they are retained.” (Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18; John xx. 23.)

The power of the keys is only a ministerial power. By administering the sacraments, they who have that power do that which conveys grace to certain souls. But whose souls are these? The souls of faithful and repentant men. They who are qualified will receive the outward ordinance which conveys to them the pardon they require: but, to those who are not qualified by repentance and faith, no blessing can be conveyed; the blessing of the minister will return to him again.

The power of the keys must likewise refer to the authority of spiritual rulers to “bind” their people by some ordinances, and to “loose” them from others, when they have been abused, always excepting the two sacraments of the gospel, baptism and the eucharist, which, instituted by our Lord himself, are always binding. When the bishops of a Church bind their people by an ordinance, their act is ratified in heaven: and they who seek grace through that ordinance, receive it. Whereas, if they loose us from an ordinance, as from many ordinances we were loosed at the Reformation, this act again is ratified in heaven, and to observe that ordinance becomes superstition, not religion.

Upon Peter’s confession, that Jesus was “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” 1. He promiseth to build his Church upon the rock of that truth, and the rock confessed in it; 2. He promiseth “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” to Peter only, of all the apostles; meaning thereby, that he should be the man that should first unlock the door of faith and of the gospel unto the Gentiles, which was accomplished in Acts x. And, 3. He giveth him power of “binding and loosing,” and this power the other disciples had in common with him. “Binding and loosing,” in the language and style most familiarly known to the Jewish nation, (and it can be little doubted that Christ speaketh according to the common and most familiar sense of the language,) did refer more properly to things than to persons; therefore he saith, (Matt. xvi. 19,) ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς, not ὃν; and in Matt. xviii. 18, ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε, not ὃσους. The phrase, “to bind and to loose,” in their vulgar speech, meant, to prohibit and to permit; or, to teach what is prohibited or permitted, what lawful, what unlawful; as may appear by these instances—a few produced, whereas thousands may be alleged out of their writings. “Our wise men say that in Judah they did work on the Passover eve till noon, but in Galilee not at all; and as for the night, the school of Shammai bound it, that is, forbade to work on it, or taught that it was unlawful; but the school of Hillel loosed it till sunrising, or taught that it was lawful to work till sunrise.” They are speaking about washing in the baths of Tiberias on the sabbath, and they determine how far this was lawful in these words, “They bound washing to them, but they loosed sweating;” meaning, they taught that it was lawful to go into the bath to sweat, but not to bathe for pleasure. “They send not letters by the hand of a Gentile on the eve of the sabbath, nor on the fifth day of the week. Nay, on the fourth day of the week, the school of Shammai bound it, but the school of Hillel loosed it.” “Women may not look in a looking-glass on the sabbath; but if it were fastened upon a wall, Rabbi loosed the looking into it; but the wise man bound it.” “R. Jochanan went from Tsipporis to Tiberias; he saith, ‘Why brought ye me to this elder? for what I loose, he bindeth; and what I bind, he looseth.’” “The scribes have bound leaven;” that is, they have prohibited it. “They have, upon necessity, loosed salutation on the sabbath;” that is, they have permitted it, or taught that it was lawful.

Thousands of instances of this nature might be produced, by all which it is clear that the Jews’ use of the phrase was of their doctors’ or learned men’s teaching what was lawful and permitted, and what was unlawful and prohibited. Hence is that definition of such men’s office and work: “A wise man that judgeth judgment, and maketh unclean and maketh clean, bindeth and looseth, that is, teacheth what is clean and unclean, what is permitted or prohibited.” And Maimonides, giving the relation of their ordaining of elders, and to what several employments they were ordained, saith thus, “A wise man that is fit to teach all the law, the consistory had power to ordain him to judge, but not to teach bound and loose: or power to teach bound and loose, but not a judge in pecuniary matters; or power to both these, but not to judge in matters of mulct,” &c. So that the ordination of one to that function,—which was more properly ministerial, or to teach the people their duty, as, what was lawful, what not; what they were to do, and what not to do,—was to such a purpose, or to such a tenor as this, “Take thou the power to bind and loose, or to teach what is bound and loose.” By this vulgar and only sense of this phrase in the nation, the meaning of 420Christ using it thus to his disciples is easily understood, namely, that he first doth instate them in a ministerial capacity to teach what bound and loose, what to be done and what not; and this as ministers: and thus all ministers successively, to the end of the world. But, as they were apostles, of that singular and unparalleled order as the like were never in the Church again, he gives them power to “bind and loose” in a degree above all ministers that were to follow: namely, that whereas some part of Moses’s law was now to stand in practice, and some to be laid aside; some things under the law prohibited, were now to be permitted; and some things, then permitted, to be now prohibited, he promiseth the apostles such assistance of his Spirit, and giveth them such power, that what they allowed to stand in practice should stand, and what to fall, should fall; “what they bound in earth should be bound in heaven,” &c.—Lightfoot.

There is one thing still behind, which we must by no means omit, especially upon this occasion, and that is, the power of governing the Church which our Lord left with his apostles and their successors to the end of the world; but so that he, according to his promise, is always present with them at the execution of it. For this power is granted to them in the very charter to which this promise is annexed; for here our Lord gives them commission not only to baptize, but likewise to teach those who are his disciples, to observe whatsoever he had commanded. Whereby they are empowered both to declare what are those commands of Christ which men ought to observe, and also to use all means to prevail upon men to observe them; such as in correcting or punishing those who violate, rewarding and encouraging those who keep them. But our Saviour’s kingdom being, as himself saith, not of this world, but purely spiritual, he hath authorized his substitutes in the government of it to use rewards and punishments of the same nature; even to admonish delinquents in his name to forsake their sins; and if they continue obstinate, and neglect such admonitions, to excommunicate, or cast them out of his Church; and, upon their repentance, to absolve and receive them in again. This power our Saviour first promised to St. Peter, and in him to the rest of the apostles. But it was not actually conferred upon them till after his resurrection, when, having breathed on them, he said unto them, “Receive the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” As if he should have said, “I, the Son of man, having power upon earth also to forgive sins, do now commit the same to you; so that whose sins soever are remitted or retained by you, are so by me also.” From whence it is plain, both that the apostles received power to remit and retain sins, and that Christ himself concurs with them in the exercise of that power; and how he doth it, even by his Holy Spirit now breathed into them. To explain the full extent and latitude of this power would require more time than can be allowed upon this day, whereon it is to be exercised; and therefore I shall observe only two things concerning it, whereof the first is, that how great soever the power be which our Lord committed to his apostles and their successors for the government of his Church in all ages, it is but ministerial; they act only under him as his ministers and stewards, and must one day give an account to him of all their actions. Yea, whatsoever power they have of this nature, it is still his power in their hands; they derive it continually from him, who is always present with them. And, therefore, as they themselves need to have a care how they exert this power, or neglect the exerting of it, so others had need take care, too, that they neither resist nor despise it.—Beveridge.

Bishop Jeremy Taylor expresses, with great clearness, the primitive doctrine on this subject: “The same promise of binding and loosing (which certainly was all that the keys were given for) was made afterwards to all the apostles, (Matt. xviii.,) and the power of remitting and retaining, which in reason, and according to the style of the Church, is the same thing in other words, was actually given to all the apostles; and unless that was the performing the first and second promise, we find it not recorded in Scripture how or when, or whether yet or no, the promise be performed.” And again: “If the keys were only given and so promised to St. Peter, that the Church hath not the keys, then the Church can neither bind nor loose, remit nor retain, which God forbid: if any man should endeavour to answer this argument, I leave him and St. Austin to contest it.”

The apostles knew nothing of any different power conveyed to one of their number beyond what was common to him with the rest, as we may reasonably conclude, since there is no record of any authority exercised on the one side, or of obedience rendered on the other.

421The proposed distinction is, indeed, utterly untenable, and the whole testimony of antiquity is against it; yet it is maintained by some of the chief Roman commentators. Maldonat, for instance, who is one of the best known and most popular, in his exposition of this place, declares the keys to have been given to Peter, that is, the power of binding and loosing, of opening and shutting, in subordination to Christ alone, while the rest of the apostles received only an inferior jurisdiction. For this interpretation he advances no proof at all, except the mention of the keys in the address to Peter, and the omission in what was spoken to the rest, which he pronounces an irrefragable argument; and on the foundation of this alleged separate gift to Peter he builds the right of jurisdiction for his successors, extending to the supreme decision of spiritual causes on earth, and the regulating the condition of souls in purgatory. Cornelius Van den Steen, or à Lapide, as he is usually called, seems to have followed the interpretation of Maldonat, and says, that by the keys is signified the power of order and jurisdiction granted to Peter over the whole Church; and that Christ explains his meaning in the words which follow. He falls into the fallacy of representing the term “rock” as conveying the notion of government; and then, as if this were an unquestionably accurate representation, he goes on to blend figures which have nothing in common, and assumes that in this way the supreme power of the pope is adequately proved. Like his predecessor, he vindicates the most unlimited exercise of it, whether in enforcing obedience, or in granting dispensations, in enacting ecclesiastical laws, pronouncing excommunications and other censures, delivering decisions on questions of faith, with other acts which fall under the head of binding, or those of an opposite character, which belong to the power of loosing. In order to dispose of the difficult fact that Christ is recorded to have given the same power of binding and loosing to others as well, he affirms that Peter was first singled out, to signify that the rest of the apostles were committed to his care as his subjects, and that he was empowered to control, limit, or take away their jurisdictions as he should see fit; though it is clear both that the apostles exercised, in point of fact, the highest Church discipline, and that there is not a word which implies their having done so by delegation. He very characteristically confirms his exposition by a synodical letter, which the great Roman annalist had given up as spurious some years before.

Both these writers were theologians of the highest repute, the one professor at Paris, the other at Louvain. They may be fairly taken to express the judgment of the party at present dominant in the Roman Church. Nothing can be more extravagant than their interpretations, or more feebly supported by proofs; yet they are indispensable to the position of the ultramontanes. This extreme doctrine, revived by the Jesuits, for it was invented a century earlier, has no pretence of confirmation from any of the primitive expositors of Scripture. They declare, with one voice, that the keys were given to the Church in the person of Peter. In the words of Ambrose, “what is said to Peter, is said to the apostles.” Cyprian and Origen, Jerome and Basil, are of one mind on this point. The statement of Augustine, repeated in a multitude of places, is as clear as possible that the Church received the power of the keys, and not an individual apostle. The Fathers were not writing with any view to the present controversy; and many of their expressions, taken separately, would give a very untrue representation of their meaning, by making them maintain opinions which, in their time, had not been even suggested. Thus Cyprian, in his treatise on the unity of the Church, applies the disputed texts to Peter; but then he speaks of him as the type of unity, the representative of a great principle; and to guard his meaning against perversion, he states, in the plainest terms, that the rest of the apostles were what Peter was, and had equal participation of honour and authority. So the Fathers continually speak of him as figuring the oneness of the Church universal. They exalt his chair, but they are careful to explain that they are speaking, not of an individual bishop possessing supreme authority, which was the farthest from their thoughts, but of that one undivided episcopacy, to use Cyprian’s well-known words, of which every bishop possesses a portion.

Dupin affirms that the Fathers are unanimous in assigning ecclesiastical power, either to the Church generally, or to the apostles, and, after them, to bishops; that there is not one to be found who holds it to have been given to Peter and his successors alone; and that they have guarded against any wrong inference which might be drawn from the promise given to Peter, by showing that he was regarded as the representative of the Church. He furnishes 422some authorities on this subject, not only from the early Fathers, but from popes, great bishops of the Roman Church, scholastic writers, and universities; and he adds, that the number of passages which might be adduced is infinite. The same great writer states strongly the importance of the question: for if, as he says, the power of the keys belongs to the pope alone, there can be no doubt that he has authority over the whole Church; since, upon this hypothesis, neither the Church nor its prelates can have any other power than such as they derive from him.

In the Council of Paris, held in the eighth century, under the emperors Louis and Lothaire, the bishops expressly claimed this power of binding and loosing, without any reference to the successor of St. Peter. The Council of Constance, in its fourth session, declared, in the strongest language, that the Church has its jurisdiction immediately from Christ; and this judgment was embodied in acts of the highest significancy and importance. The Council of Basle, in its first session, passed a decree in exactly the same spirit, and almost in the very same words. Æneas Sylvius, the historian of the council, and afterwards Pius II., expressly vindicates the text in question from the interpretation which favours the pontifical authority. So Cardinal de Cusa, writing at the same period, claims for the other apostles the very same power of binding and loosing which was conveyed to Peter by the words of Christ. And John Gerson refers to this very place, in maintaining the superiority of a council to a pope. Even in the Council of Trent, we find the Cardinal of Lorraine speaking to the same effect; and though he may be worthless as a theologian, he is valuable as a witness. He alleged various passages, from Augustine and others, in proof that bishops derive their jurisdiction immediately from God. And, indeed, the whole argument of the French and Spanish prelates in favour of the divine right of episcopacy was based on the very interpretation of our Lord’s words which the Jesuit school condemns.

The canonists bear the same testimony. Thus Van Espen, and there are few higher authorities, delivers it as the doctrine of the Fathers on this subject, that, while Christ spoke to Peter in the singular, he made conveyance of the powers in question to all the apostles. Duaren speaks to the same effect. He affirms that the power of binding and loosing was given to the Church, and not to an individual.

Some even of the Roman commentators give a similar interpretation. Thus Nicholas de Lyra says that, as the confession of Peter was the confession of the rest, so the power given to him was bestowed on all. D’Espence and many others give the same exposition.

The severe rebuke administered to Peter, following so closely upon his confession, puts another difficulty in the way of those who insist on his great personal prerogatives. Gregory de Valentia proposes, as a rule of interpretation, that some things are to be taken as addressed to Peter in his public, and some in his private, character. Thus he supposes him to have been called the Rock in the former, and Satan in the latter; but this distinction is arbitrary, and obviously invented to serve a purpose. We shall not be more disposed to adopt the opinion of Hilary, who would have us consider the one part of the sentence addressed to Peter, the other to the evil spirit. But while, with the great body of ancient doctors, we admit the sin, we may well believe that God in his wisdom overruled it for good, by making it a warning that we should not think even of this eminent apostle more highly than we ought to think.—S. Robins.

KINDRED. (See Consanguinity.)

KING’S EVIL. This disease is connected with the ecclesiastical history of England by the power to cure it, which was for many centuries attributed to the kings of England, and which was, from the time of Edward the Confessor, held to be exercised as a part of the religion attached to the person of the king. The cure, too, was always accompanied by a religious service.

The kings of France also claimed the gift of healing, (but upon no other occasions than at their coronation,) and the ceremony was used at the coronation of Charles X., at Rheims. George I. made no pretensions to this gift, and it has never been claimed by his successors.

Bishop Bull says, “that divers persons desperately labouring under the king’s evil, have been cured by the mere touch of the royal hands, assisted with the prayers of the priests of our Church attending, is unquestionable, unless the faith of all our ancient writers, and the consentient report of hundreds of most credible persons in our own age, attesting the same, is to be questioned.”—Sermon on St. Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh.

In January, 1683, a proclamation was issued by the privy-council, and was ordered to be published in every parish in the kingdom, enjoining that the time for presenting persons for the “public healings” 423should be from the feast of All-saints, till a week before Christmas; and after Christmas until the first day of March, and then to cease till Passion week.

The office for the ceremony was called “The Ceremonies,” or “Prayers for the Healing.” The Latin form was used in the time of Henry VII., and was reprinted by the king’s printer in 1686. The English forms were essentially the same, with some modifications. These occur in the Common Prayer Books of the reigns of Charles I., Charles II., James II., and Anne (and, as it appears from Mr. Stephens’s own statement, in that of George I., in 1715). They all vary; and a new one appears to have been drawn up for each sovereign, so late as 1719. (See Pegge’s Curialia Miscellanea, 161; taken from a folio Prayer Book, 1710. Also Kennet’s Register, 731, and Sparrow’s Articles, 165, which latter form seems to have been used in the reign of Charles I.) In Mr. Stephens’s editions of the Common Prayer Book, from which the foregoing article has been abridged, the Latin form is given, (i. 997,) and the English form in 1715 (1002).

The following is the form in Sparrow’s Collections, printed in 1684.

AT THE HEALING.

The Gospel written in the 16th chapter of St. Mark, beginning at the 14th verse.

Jesus appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and cast in their teeth their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen that he was risen again from the dead. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to all creatures: He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these tokens shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak with new tongues, they shall drive away serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them. ^[6]They shall lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So when the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received into heaven, and is on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with miracles following.

The Gospel written in the 1st chapter of St. John, beginning at the 1st verse.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men, and the light shined in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. There was sent from God a man whose name was John. The same came as a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of the Light. ^[7]That Light was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came among his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to be made sons of God, even them that believed on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor yet of the will of man, but of God. And the same Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw the glory of it, as the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

THE PRAYERS.

Vers. Lord have mercy upon us.

Resp. Lord have mercy upon us.

Vers. Christ have mercy upon us.

Resp. Christ have mercy upon us.

Vers. Lord have mercy upon us.

Resp. Lord have mercy upon us.

Our Father which art in Heaven. Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.

(These Answers are to be made by them that come to be healed.)

Vers. O Lord, save thy servants.

Resp. Which put their trust in thee.

Vers. Send help unto them from above.

Resp. And evermore mightily defend them.

Vers. Help us, O God our Saviour.

Resp. And for the glory of thy Name deliver us; be merciful unto us sinners for thy Name’s sake.

Vers. O Lord, hear our prayer.

Resp. And let our cry come unto thee.

O Almighty God, who art the giver of all health, and the aid of them that seek 424to Thee for succour, we call upon Thee for thy help and goodness mercifully to be showed unto these thy servants, that they being healed of their infirmity, may give thanks unto thee in thy holy Church, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore. Amen.

The same form appears at the end of L’Estrange’s Alliance of the Divine Offices, 1699. It seems that in some of Queen Anne’s Prayer Books, (not in 1715, as stated by Mr. Stephens,) the form was altered, by the omission of the second Gospel, and the addition of certain prayers.

There seems to be little doubt that, by the mere force of imagination, a cure was not unfrequently occasioned.

KINGS, BOOKS OF. Two canonical books of the Old Testament, so called, because they contain the history of the kings of Israel and Judah, from the beginning of the reign of Solomon down to the Babylonish captivity, for the space of near 600 years; taking into the account the two preceding Books of Samuel. In the Greek Bibles, as well as in the Latin, the two Books of Samuel are called the First and Second Books of Kings; so that in these copies of the Bible there are four Books of Kings. Anciently these four were but two in the Hebrew Bibles, the first whereof was called Samuel, and the second Kings, or Kingdoms: but at present, in the Hebrew copies, the first of these books is styled the First and Second Book of Samuel; and the other, the First and Second of Kings, as in our English version of the Bible.

It is probable that the two Books of Kings were composed by Ezra, who extracted them out of the public records which were kept of what passed in that nation.

KIRK OF SCOTLAND. (See Presbyterians.) The Kirk of Scotland acknowledges as its founder the celebrated John Knox, a disciple of Calvin. From its foundation, it adopted the doctrine and ecclesiastical government of the Church of Geneva. In 1581, King James, with his whole family and the whole nation, subscribed a confession of faith, with a solemn league and covenant, obliging themselves to maintain and defend the Protestant religion and Presbyterian government. The title of this confession is, “A General Confession of the true Christian Faith and Religion, according to God’s Word, and Acts of our Parliament, subscribed by the King’s Majestic and his Household; with sundrie others. To the glory of God, and good example of all men. At Edinburgh, the 28th day of Januarie. The year of our Lord 1581. And in the 14th year of his Majestie’s reign.” (See Confessions of Faith.)