PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. (continued 39)

“Archbishop or bishop: ‘Will you to your power cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all your judgments?’ The king and queen shall answer, ‘I will.’

“Archbishop or bishop: ‘Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel, and Protestant reformed religion established by law? And will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rites and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them or any of them?’ The king or queen shall answer, ‘All this I promise to do:’ after this, laying his or her hand upon the holy Gospels, he or she shall say, ‘The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep: so help me God:’ and shall then kiss the book.”

By the Act of Union of the two kingdoms of England and Scotland, 5 Anne, c. 8, it is enacted, that after the demise of her Majesty Queen Anne, the sovereign next succeeding, and so for ever afterwards every king or queen succeeding to the royal government of the kingdom of Great Britain, at his or her coronation, shall in the presence of all persons who shall be attending, assisting, or otherwise then and there present, take and subscribe an oath to maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof as by law established, within the kingdoms of England and Ireland, and the dominion of Wales and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed and the territories thereunto belonging.

And shall also swear and subscribe, that they shall inviolably maintain and preserve the settlement of the true Protestant religion, with the government, worship, discipline, right, and privileges of the Church of Scotland, as then established by the laws of that kingdom. (The foregoing authorities are quoted from Burn.)

By the Church of England, the sovereign is thus regarded as being over all persons, and over all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, supreme. On this head an objection is raised against the Church of England, as if her ministers derived their authority from the Crown. This objection is thus answered by Palmer: 1. We must insist upon it that the principles of the Church of England, with reference to the authority of the civil magistrate in ecclesiastical affairs, cannot be determined in any way by the opinions of lawyers, or the preambles of acts of parliament. We nowhere subscribe to either one or the other. 2. The opinion of the temporal power itself as to its own authority in ecclesiastical affairs, and its acts in accordance with such opinions, are perfectly distinct from the principles of the Church of England on these points. We are not bound to adopt such opinions, or approve such acts of temporal rulers, nor even to approve every point of the existing law. 3. The clergy of England, in acknowledging the supremacy of the king, A.D. 1531, did so, as Burnet proves, with the important proviso, “quantum per Christi legem licet;” which original condition is ever to be supposed in our acknowlegment of the royal supremacy. Consequently we give no authority to the prince, except what is consistent with the maintenance of all those rights, liberties, jurisdictions, and spiritual powers, “which the law of Christ confers on his Church.” 4. The Church of England believes the jurisdiction and commission of her clergy to come from God, by apostolic succession, as is evident from the ordination service, and has been proved by the Papist Milner himself (“Letters to a Prebendary,” Let. 8); and it is decidedly the doctrine of the great majority of her theologians. 5. The acts of English monarchs have been objected in proof of their views on the subject. We are not bound to subscribe to those views. If their acts were wrong in any case, we never approved them, though we may have been obliged by circumstances to submit to intrusions and usurpations. But since this is a favourite topic with Romanists, let us view the matter a little on another side. I ask, then, whether the parliaments of France did not, for a long series of years, 734exercise jurisdiction over the administration of the sacraments, compelling the Roman bishops and priests of France to give the sacrament to Jansenists, whom they believed to be heretics? Did they not repeatedly judge in questions of faith, viz. as to the obligation of the bull “Unigenitus?” Did they not take cognizance of questions of faith and discipline to such a degree, that they were said to resemble “a school of theology?” I ask whether the clergy of France in their convocations were not wholly under the control of the king, who could prescribe their subjects of debate, prevent them from debating, prorogue, dissolve, &c.?

Did they not repeatedly beg in vain from the kings of France, for a long series of years, to be permitted to hold provincial synods for the suppression of immorality, heresy, and infidelity? Is not this liberty still withheld from them, and from every other Roman Church in Europe? I further ask whether the emperor Joseph II. did not enslave the Churches of Germany and Italy? Whether he did not suppress monasteries, suppress and unite bishoprics? Whether he did not suspend the bishops from conferring orders, exact from them oaths of obedience to all his measures present and future, issue royal decrees for removing images from churches, and for the regulation of Divine worship down to the minutest points, even to the number of candles at mass? Whether he did not take on himself to silence preachers who had declaimed against persons of unsound faith? Whether he did not issue decrees against the bull “Unigenitus,” thus interfering with the doctrinal decision of the whole Roman Church? I ask whether this conduct was not accurately imitated by the grand duke of Tuscany, the king of Naples, the duke of Parma; whether it did not become prevalent in almost every part of the Roman Church; and whether its effects do not continue to the present day? I again ask, whether “Organic Articles” were not enacted by Buonaparte in the new Gallican Church, which placed everything in ecclesiastical affairs under the government? Whether the bishops were not forbidden by the emperor to confer orders without the permission of government; whether the obvious intention was not to place the priests, even in their spiritual functions, under the civil powers? And, in fine, whether these obnoxious “Organic Articles” are not, up to the present day, in almost every point in force? I again inquire whether the order of Jesuits was not suppressed by the mere civil powers, in Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, &c.; whether convents, monasteries, confraternities, friars, and monks, and nuns, of every sort and kind, were not extinguished, suppressed, annihilated by royal commission, and by the temporal power, in France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Sicily, Spain, Portugal, &c., and in opposition to the petitions and protests of the pope and the bishops? I again ask, whether the king of Sicily does not, in his “Tribunal of the Monarchy,” up to the present day, try ecclesiastical causes, censure, excommunicate, absolve? Whether this tribunal did not, in 1712, give absolution from episcopal excommunications; and whether it was not restored by Benedict XII. in 1728?

Is there a Roman Church on the continent of Europe, where the clergy can communicate freely with him whom they regard as their spiritual head; or where all papal bulls, rescripts, briefs, &c. are not subjected to a rigorous surveillance on the part of government, and allowed or disallowed at its pleasure? In fine, was not Gregory XVI. himself compelled, in his encyclical letter of 1832, to utter the most vehement complaints and lamentations, at the degraded condition of the Roman obedience? Does he not confess that the Church is “subjected to earthly considerations,” “reduced to a base servitude,” “the rights of its bishops trampled on?” These are all certain facts: I appeal in proof of them to the Roman historians, and to many other writers of authority; and they form but a part of what might be said on this subject. Romanists should blush to accuse the Church of England for the acts of our civil rulers in ecclesiastical matters. They should remember those words, “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

But it will be objected, all this was contrary at least to the principles of the Roman Church, while English theologians, on the contrary, exaggerate the authority of the civil magistrate in ecclesiastical affairs. We admit unequivocally, that some of our theologians have spoken unadvisedly on this subject. But what of that? Can they have gone further than the whole school of Gallican writers, of modern canonists, and reforming theologians, in the Romish Church, whose object is to overthrow the papal power, and render the Church subservient in all things to the State? Do Romanists imagine that we are ignorant of the principles of Pithou 735and the Gallican School, of Giannone, Van Espen, Zallwein, De Hontheim, Ricci, Eybel, Sioch, Rechberger, Oberhauser, Riegger, Cavallari, Tamburini, and fifty others, who were tinged with the very principles imputed to us? Do they forget that their clergy in many parts have petitioned princes to remove the canonical law of celibacy? In fine, is it not well known, that there is a conspiracy among many of their theologians, to subject the discipline of the Church to the civil magistrate? It is really too much for Romanists to assail us on the very point where they are themselves most vulnerable, and where they are actually most keenly suffering. Our Churches, though subject to some inconvenience, and lately aggrieved by the suppression of bishoprics in Ireland, contrary to the solemn protests of the bishops and clergy, are yet in a far more respectable and independent position than the Roman Churches. Those amongst us who maintain the highest principles of the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, have reason to feel thankful that we have not yet fallen to the level of the Church of Rome.

SUPREMACY, PAPAL. The fourth Lateran Council, in the year 1215, is the first of those called general which recognised the authority of the Roman see as supreme over the Church. In the fifth canon the Roman Church is said to have “a principality of power over all others, as the mother and mistress of all Christian believers;” and all other patriarchs are required to receive their palls from the Roman pontiff. The titles of universal pope and universal patriarch, first used by the bishops of Constantinople, and afterwards applied indifferently to the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, as appears by the letters of the emperor Constantine Pogonatus, in Labbe and Cossart, vol. vi. pp. 593, 599, were titles of honour, and did not imply universal jurisdiction. There was no allusion to it in any former general council; so that, up to 1215, it was free for a man to think how he pleased concerning it. And not only were men free to deny the papal supremacy, they were bound to resist and reject it, in all places where it could not be proved to have been from the beginning. For so it was decreed by the third general council, which was assembled at Ephesus, A. D. 431, “that none of the bishops, most beloved of God, do assume any other province that is not, and was not formerly, and from the beginning, subject to him, or those who were his predecessors. But if any have assumed any church, that he be forced to restore it, that so the canons of the fathers be not transgressed, nor worldly pride be introduced under the mask of this sacred function. The holy general synod hath therefore decreed, that the right of every province, formerly, and from the beginning, belonging to it, be preserved clear and inviolable.” This decree was passed on the occasion of an attempt by the patriarch of Antioch to usurp authority over the churches of the island of Cyprus, which had not been formerly under his jurisdiction, and is worthy of notice to the members of the Churches of England and Ireland. For as it is beyond denial, from the conduct of the British and Irish bishops, that the Churches in these islands knew no subjection to Rome up to the close of the sixth century, it is certain that every exercise of jurisdiction which the bishop of Rome practised afterwards for a time in this kingdom, was in violation of the decrees of the Catholic Church, and that the Churches here were merely acting in obedience to those decrees, when, after having made trial of that cruel bondage, they were enabled to release themselves from it. There is one other thing not unworthy of notice as concerns this point. By the creed of Pope Pius, all communicants in the Church of Rome are required to acknowledge as part of that “faith without which no man can be saved,” “the holy Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, for the mother and mistress of all Churches.” It should be known that the Fathers assembled in the second general council, Constantinople, A. D. 381, gave the title which is here claimed for Rome to the Church of Jerusalem, as appears from their synodical epistle. “We acknowledge the most venerable Cyril, most beloved of God, to be bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, which is the mother of all Churches.”—See Conc. ii. 866. Thus then it appears, that in order to obtain communion in Rome, it is necessary to record an opinion directly at variance with that of a general council universally acknowledged.

The following has been abbreviated from Mr. Sanderson Robins’s very able treatise on the Evidence of Scripture against the Claims of the Church of Rome.

“The earlier popes knew nothing of the modern view which makes Peter and his alleged successors to be the supreme pastors, and all other bishops subordinate and deriving authority from them. Launoy cites no fewer than forty who employ the term fellow-bishop, and fellow-priest; which utterly contradicts the opinion of 736Bellarmine and his school. The very formula which indicates the invasion of episcopal independence, ‘By the grace of the apostolic see,’ is not to be traced farther back than the middle of the thirteenth century. Yet Duval argues that because the jurisdiction of bishops can be limited or taken away by the pope, it is not derived immediately from Christ. The converse is the true proposition; because it is derived immediately from Christ, it cannot be limited or taken away by the pope.

“The interpretation which assigns supreme power to the pope as Peter’s successor, would make him universal bishop, and leave nothing but vicarial power to all other bishops, which is exactly the conclusion so strenuously resisted by Gregory the Great, when he feared the growing importance of the see of Constantinople. Bellarmine admits the title to be antichristian and profane; but when he attempts to draw a distinction in favour of the powers claimed for the bishop of Rome, he reasons illogically, as Launoy has abundantly proved.

“The witness of the Bible remains, in spite of all efforts to conceal or pervert its meaning by those who are interested in defending an adverse system. It represents the office of Christ as incommunicable and unapproachable. He is the Root, from which the branches derive life and strength; the Shepherd, who knows his sheep, and is known of them; the heavenly Bridegroom, to whom the Church is espoused. So, again, he is ‘the Head over all things to the Church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.’ When the title is ascribed to another, there is insurmountable difficulty involved. If Peter, or the bishop of Rome, is the head, then the Church must in the same sense be his body, which no one ventures to say. The distinction, again, between a visible and an invisible head has not the least show of Scripture proof, and is no better than an invention to meet an obvious difficulty. Nor is it of any avail to speak, as some do, of Christ as the essential, and Peter as the ministerial head, because whatever relation to the Church is represented by the figure, can exist only under the former, that is, by the union of believers to Christ, which is maintained through the ministry of the word and sacraments.

“There is an utter and hopeless disagreement, and on a point which involves supreme government. It is no secondary question, but one, as Dupin reminds us, which includes all ecclesiastical discipline. And yet, whether pope is superior to council, or the reverse; and whether the pope enjoys his prerogatives by Divine right, or ecclesiastical, has never been defined, though the decision is above all things required. In the Council of Trent, where the delivery of a clear, intelligible doctrine might have been reasonably expected, there was, instead, a prohibition of all discussion on the subject. It is not even settled whether, by disagreement on the question, persons incur the peril of heresy; Gerson holds the affirmative, and Bossuet sides with him, while Duval and others maintain the negative. The truth is, that the Roman Church has authorized two opposite conclusions, which have been enforced as the one party or the other prevailed. It is not the mere contention of private doctors, whose judgment might on either side be disavowed, but it is the Church itself which speaks inconsistently by its synodical decisions. It has, indeed, been demanded unreasonably, and sometimes incautiously allowed, that no statements of doctrine should be attributed to the Roman Church as authoritative, but such as are contained in the decrees of the Council of Trent, in the creed of Pius IV., and in the catechism. But it is to be observed, in the first place, that the decisions of the council avowedly do not extend beyond such points as had been brought into question by Protestants, and, at the same time, had not been disputed among Romanists themselves, for it was expressly enjoined that no definition should be made about any matter controverted among ‘Catholics’ themselves. The creed and the catechism have no more than the authority of the individual pope, by whom they were promulgated. It is true that this office was remitted to the bishop of Rome by the members of the council, but they possessed no such power of delegation. They might have adopted any decree of the pope, and have given it synodical sanction; but their consent previous to the consideration, or even knowledge of its contents, could not afford any weight additional to that which the pope alone could give. And, in the next place, the index of books, the catechism, the breviary, and the missal, possess equal authority, for they are enumerated together in the decree passed at the close of the council; that is, they possess as much authority as the decree of a pope could give them, and less than that which belongs to the decree of a council which has papal confirmation. It is true that, in the last of the articles which Pius IV. added to the creed of the Church Catholic, 737there is a profession of adherence to the decrees of general councils; but then no Romanist can tell what is and what is not a general council. It depends on the school to which he belongs, and on which side of the mountains he happens to live. Some so-called general councils, as Bellarmine tells us, are received, some are rejected, and some partly approved and partly reprobated; which, as Leslie says truly, ‘is going through all the degrees of uncertainty.’ The chief difficulty arises from those which flatly contradict each other, and which yet, from indispensable considerations, the Roman Church is obliged to acknowledge; they are chiefly such as pronounce upon this question of the supreme authority. At Pisa, and Constance, and Basle, the superiority of a council was distinctly and absolutely affirmed; and obedience required from all persons of whatever dignity, including the pope. In the Council of Florence it was decreed that the pope, as the successor of Peter, and as the vicar of Christ, is head of the whole church, the father and teacher of all Christians, and that plenary power from Christ was given him, in the person of St. Peter, to feed the universal flock. The Lateran Council under Leo X. decreed that the pope has full authority over all councils, to summon, transfer, and dissolve them. It is to be observed, that these conflicting decisions of great Roman councils are no more than the embodying in decrees the opposite interpretations of that text which forms the main Scripture authority for all papal assumptions. No Latin council is to be compared with that of Constance for importance or dignity; and by its acts, accepted and confirmed through the whole Western Church, it rejected the exposition which Romanists are now trying to enforce. M. de Maistre, the chief papal champion in the present century, disposes of the difficulty in a very characteristic way. When pressed with the Decrees of Constance, he says that the answer is easy: the council talked nonsense, like the English Long Parliament, or the Constituent Assembly, or the National Convention, &c.

“Our opponents boast that their Church is the same everywhere; but we cross the Alps, and find the whole system of ecclesiastical doctrine changed. The very term, ultramontane, which is universally recognised as the distinction of a school, bears witness that diversities have not only subsisted at different periods, but exist at the same time in different places. The Gallican Church has, doubtless, been the stronghold of those who deny the absolute power of the pope; but they have had their advocates among distinguished members of the Roman communion in all countries. Panormitan represented them in Italy, Cardinal de Cusa in Germany, and in Spain Alphonso Tostato, of whom Bellarmine says that he was the wonder of the world for his learning. Nay, even in the university of Paris, and among the doctors of the Sorbonne, we find the contest raging with the utmost violence, and the great teachers in vehement antagonism. Sometimes we see the representative of the pope brought into collision with the theological professor; as when Richer maintained the prevalent opinions of his Church against Cardinal du Perron, who, being a convert from Protestantism, was, of course, extravagant on the other side. Then, at the close of the century, we have Roccaberti, archbishop of Valentia, unsparing in his condemnation of the Gallicans, and calling on the pope to put them down. While Bossuet, on the other hand, affirms that the doctrine which he maintained had always been held in the Church; though he does not attempt to prove that there had not been another distinct line of teaching.”

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

SURETY. (See Sponsors.)

SURPLICE. A white linen garment, worn by the Christian clergy and other ministers of the Church, in the celebration of Divine services, and also, on certain days, by members of colleges, whether clerical or lay. It is, in Latin, superpelliceum, a name which Cardinal Bona says was not older than 600 years before his time, (the middle of the seventeenth century,) and was so called from the white garment which was placed by ecclesiastics, super pelles, over the garments of dressed skins worn by the northern nations.

This habit seems to have been originally copied from the vestments of the Jewish priests, who, by God’s own appointment, were to put on a white linen ephod at the time of public service. And its antiquity in the Christian Church may be seen from Gregory Nazianzen, who advised the priests to purity, because a little spot is soon seen in a white garment; but more expressly from St. Jerome, who, reproving the needless scruples of such as opposed the use of it, says, “what offence can it be to God, for a bishop or priest to proceed to the communion in a white garment?” The ancients called this garment, from its colour, Alba, the Albe, a word in later times applied to a surplice with close sleeves.

738The surplice is white, to represent the innocence and righteousness with which God’s ministers ought to be clothed. As for the shape of it, it is a thing so perfectly indifferent, that no reason need to be assigned for it; though Durandus has found out one: for that author observes, that, as the garments used by the Jewish priesthood were girt tight about them, to signify the bondage of the law; so the looseness of the surplices used by the Christian priests signifies the freedom of the gospel.

It is objected by dissenters from the Church of England, against the use of the surplice, that it is a rag of Popery, and has been abused by the Papists to superstitious and idolatrous uses. But this is no just objection against it; for, if the surplice, or some such white garment, was in use among the primitive Christians, the Church is justified in following their example, notwithstanding the abuses thereof by those of the Romish or any other communion.

Whether the surplice should be worn by the preacher in the pulpit is a question which has given rise, of late years, to much unprofitable controversy. On the side of wearing the surplice, it is said that the preacher is nowhere in the Prayer Book directed to change his dress; and therefore his dress should be, as before prescribed, the surplice. On the other hand it has been shown that, before the Reformation, the preachers were accustomed to wear their ordinary dress in the pulpit, except in cathedrals and collegiate churches, which custom has come down to us; and to adhere to inherited customs is to act on the catholic principle. On these facts it is obvious to remark, first, that the ultra-Protestants who are very violent against the use of the surplice by the preacher,—are, in this instance, the Romanizers; and secondly, that if the surplice be not worn, since no preacher’s dress is appointed by the Church, the preacher would be more correct who should appear in his ordinary costume. But those who are wise on either side, will, in regard to a thing so purely indifferent, follow the customs of the place in which they are called to officiate.

SURPLICE DAYS, or times. According to the 17th canon, “all masters and fellows of colleges or halls, and all the scholars and students in either of the universities, shall in their churches and chapels, upon all Sundays, holy-days, and their eves, at the time of Divine service, wear surplices according to the order of the Church of England; and such as are graduates, shall agreeably wear with their surplices such hoods as do severally appertain unto their degrees.” Saturday evening, it is to be observed, as the eve of Sunday, has always been considered as coming within this rule. The colleges in the universities of Cambridge and Dublin construe this rule as applying to all their members; those of Oxford, Christ Church excepted, to the foundation members only; and there noblemen are deprived of the privilege of wearing the surplice. By the 25th canon, the use of the surplice is prescribed daily to the dean, masters, heads of collegiate churches, canons, and prebendaries. The short surplice adopted in the Roman Church is a corruption, as Cardinal Bona confesses. He says that “Stephen of Tonmay, who lived A. D. 1180, shows that the surplice formerly reached to the feet;” and so likewise “Honorius de Vestibus Clericorum:” and that in the course of time it was shortened, as it appears from the Council of Basle, sess. 21, which commanded the clergy to have surplices reaching below the middle of the leg. He adds, that they are now so much shortened as scarcely to reach to the knee. Hence it is evident that the Church of England retains the correct and ancient fashion.—Jebb.

SURROGATE. Surrogate is one who is substituted or appointed in the room of another. Thus the office of granting licences for marriage in lieu of banns, being in the bishop of the diocese by his chancellor, the inconvenience of a journey to the seat of episcopal jurisdiction is obviated by the appointment of clergymen in the principal towns of the diocese as surrogates, with the power of granting such licences, and of granting probates of wills, &c.

By canon 128, “No chancellor, commissary, archdeacon, official, or any other person using ecclesiastical jurisdiction, shall substitute in their absence any to keep court for them, unless he be either a grave minister and a graduate, or a licensed public preacher, and a beneficed man near the place where the courts are kept, or a bachelor of law, or a master of arts at least, who hath some skill in the civil and ecclesiastical law, and is a favourer of true religion, and a man of modest and honest conversation; under pain of suspension, for every time that they offend therein, from the execution of their offices for the space of three months toties quoties: and he likewise that is deputed, being not qualified as is before expressed, and yet shall presume to be a substitute to any judge, and shall keep any court as aforesaid, shall undergo the same censure in manner and form as is before expressed.”

739And by the statute of the 26 Geo. II. c. 33, No surrogate, deputed by any ecclesiastical judge, who hath power to grant licences of marriage, shall grant any such licence before he hath taken an oath before the said judge, faithfully to execute his office according to law, to the best of his knowledge; and hath given security by his bond in the sum of £100 to the bishop of the diocese, for the due and faithful execution of his office.

SURSUM CORDA. (Lift up your hearts.) Cyprian, in the third century, attests the use of the form “Lift up your hearts,” and its response, in the liturgy of Africa. Augustine, at the beginning of the fifth century, speaks of these words as being used in all churches. And accordingly we find them placed at the beginning of the Anaphora, or canon, (or solemn prayers,) in the liturgies of Antioch and Cæsarea, Constantinople and Rome, Africa, Gaul, and Spain. How long these introductory sentences have been used in England it would be in vain to inquire: we have no reason, however, to doubt that they are as old as Christianity itself in these countries. The Gallican and Italian churches used them, and Christianity with its liturgy probably came to the British isles from one or other of those churches. We may be certain, at all events, that they have been used in the English liturgy ever since the time of Augustine, archbishop of Canterbury, in 595.

It appears that these sentences were preceded by a salutation or benediction in the ancient liturgies. According to Theodoret, the beginning of the mystical liturgy, or most solemn prayers, was that apostolic benediction, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.” The same was also alluded to by Chrysostom, when he was a presbyter of the Church of Antioch. We find that this benediction, with the response of the people, “And with thy spirit,” has all along preserved its place in the East; for in the liturgies of Cæsarea, Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem, it is uniformly placed at the beginning of the Anaphora, just before the form, “Lift up your hearts.” In Egypt, Africa, and Italy, the apostolic benediction was not used at this place, but instead of it the priest said, “The Lord be with you,” and the people replied, “and with thy spirit.” In Spain, and probably Gaul, as now in England, there was no salutation before the introductory sentences.

Priest. Lift up your hearts. Sacerdos. corda.

Answer. We lift them up unto the Lord. Respons. Habemus ad Dominum.

Priest. Let us give thanks unto our Lord God. Sacerdos. Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.

Answer. It is meet and right so to do. Respons. Dignum et justum est.

Palmer.

SUSANNAH, THE HISTORY OF. An apocryphal book (or rather chapter) of the Bible, containing the story of one Susannah, daughter of Chelcias, and the wife of Joachim, of the tribe of Judah, who lived at Babylon, being carried thither captive with her husband, probably at the same time with Daniel, that is, in the year of the world 3398, before Christ 604. The story is well known, being allowed to be read, among other apocryphal books, for the instruction of manners.

This history makes part of the book of Daniel in the Greek, but is not found in the Hebrew. Many therefore have disputed, not only the canonicalness, but even the truth of it; imagining it to be no more than a pious fable, invented as an example of a chaste and loyal wife. Julius Africanus was of this opinion; and St. Jerome in some places censures it as a mere fable; though, in others, he tells us that not only the Greeks and Latins, but the Syrians and Egyptians also, received and admitted it as Scripture. Origen wrote expressly in defence of it. The Church of Rome allows it to be of equal authority with the Book of Daniel.

SUSPENSION. In the laws of the Church we read of two sorts of suspension; one relating solely to the clergy, the other extending also to the laity. That which relates solely to the clergy is suspension from office and benefice jointly, or from office or benefice singly; and may be called a temporary degradation, or deprivation of both. And the penalty upon a clergyman officiating after suspension, if he shall persist therein after a reproof from the bishop, (by the ancient canon law,) that he shall be excommunicated all manner of ways, and every person who communicates with him shall be excommunicated also. The other sort of suspension, which extends also to the laity, is suspension ab ingressu ecclesiæ, or from the hearing of Divine service, and receiving the holy communion; which may therefore be called a temporary excommunication. Which two sorts of suspension, the one relating to the clergy alone, and the other to the laity also, do herein agree, that both are inflicted for crimes of an 740inferior nature, such as in the first case deserve not deprivation, and such as in the second case deserve not excommunication; that both, in practice at least, are temporary; both also terminate either at a certain time, when inflicted for such time, or upon satisfaction given to the judge when inflicted until something be performed which he has enjoined; and lastly, both (if unduly performed) are attended with further penalties; that of the clergy with irregularity, if they act in the mean time; and that of the laity (as it seems) with excommunication, if they either presume to join in communion during their suspension, or do not in due time perform those things which the suspension was intended to enforce the performance of.

SWEDENBORGIANS. This body of Christians claims to possess an entirely new dispensation of doctrinal truth derived from the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg; and, as the name imports, they refuse to be numbered with the sects of which the general body of Christendom is at present composed.

Emanuel Baron Swedenborg was born at Stockholm in 1688, and died in London in 1772. He was a person of great intellectual attainments, a member of several of the learned societies of Europe, and the author of very voluminous philosophical treatises. In 1745 he separated himself from all secular pursuits, relinquished his official labours in the Swedish State, and commenced the career which led to a religious movement. In that year, and thenceforth, he was favoured, he reports, with continual communications from the spiritual world, being oftentimes admitted into heaven itself, and there indulged with splendid visions of angelic glory and felicity. The power was given him to converse with these celestial residents; and from their revelations, sometimes made directly to himself and sometimes gathered by him from the course of their deliberations, he obtained the most important of his doctrines. His own account of the matter is thus stated in a letter to a friend:—“I have been called to a holy office by the Lord himself, who most graciously manifested himself before me, his servant, in the year 1745, and then opened my sight into the spiritual world, and gave me to speak with spirits and angels, as I do even to this day. From that time I began to publish the many arcana which I have either seen, or which have been revealed to me, concerning heaven and hell, concerning the state of man after death, concerning true Divine worship, and concerning the spiritual sense of the Word, besides other things of the highest importance, conducive to salvation and wisdom.”

The general result of these communications was to convince the baron that the sacred writings have two senses—one their natural, the other their spiritual, sense; the latter of which it was his high commission to unfold. The natural sense is that which is alone received by other Christian churches—the words of Scripture being understood to have the same signification (and no other) which they bear in ordinary human intercourse; the spiritual sense is that which, in the judgment of the New Church, is concealed within the natural sense of these same words, each word or phrase possessing, in addition to its ordinary meaning, an interior significance corresponding with some spiritual truth.

The principal tenets he deduced from this interior meaning of the Holy Word, and which his followers still maintain, are these: That the last judgment has already been accomplished (viz. in 1757); that the former “heaven and earth” are passed away; that the “New Jerusalem,” mentioned in the Apocalypse, has already descended, in the form of the “New Church;” and, that, consequently, the second advent of the Lord has even now been realized, in a spiritual sense, by the exhibition of his power and glory in the New Church thus established.

The usual doctrine of the Trinity is not received; the belief of the New Church being, “that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, comparatively as soul, body, and proceeding operation are one in every individual man.”

The New Church also rejects the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the imputed righteousness of Christ: salvation, it inculcates, cannot be obtained except by the combination of good works with faith. “To fear God, and to work righteousness, is to have charity; and whoever has charity, whatever his religious sentiments may be, will be saved.”

The resurrection, it is believed, will not be that of the material body, but of a spiritual body; and this will not immediately pass into a final state of being, but be subject to a kind of purgatory, where those who are interiorly good will receive truth corresponding with their state of goodness, and thus be fitted for heaven; while those who are interiorly evil will reject all truth, and thus be among the lost.

The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper are administered in the 741New Church. The former is believed to be “a sign and a medium, attended with a Divine influence of introduction into the Lord’s Church; and it means that the Lord will purify our minds from wicked desires and bad thoughts, if we are obedient to his holy word.” The latter is believed to be “a sign and a medium, attended with a Divine influence, for introducing the Lord’s true children, as to their spirits, into heaven; and it means that the Lord feeds their souls with his Divine goodness and truth.”

The mode of worship adopted by the followers of Swedenborg resembles in its general form that of most other Christian bodies; the distribution of subjects in their liturgy, and the composition of their hymns and prayers, being, of course, special; but no particular form is considered to be binding on each society.

The general affairs of the New Church (which is the name assumed by the Swedenborgian sect) are managed by a conference, which meets yearly, composed of ministers and laymen in conjunction; the proportion of the latter being determined by the size of the respective congregations which they represent: a society of from 12 to 50 members sending one representative, and societies of from 50 to 100 members, and those of upwards 100 members, sending each two and three representatives respectively. There is nothing, however, in Swedenborg’s writings to sanction any particular form of Church government.—Registrar-general’s Report.

SYMBOL, or SYMBOLUM. A title anciently given to the Apostles’ Creed, and for which several reasons have been assigned. Two of these have an appearance of probability, viz. that (1.) which derives it from a Greek word, signifying a throwing or casting together, and alleges that the apostles each contributed an article to form the creed, forming their joint opinion or counsel in an abridged form; and (2.) the opinion that this creed was used in times of persecution as a watchword or mark whereby Christians (like soldiers in the army) were distinguished from all others. This latter is the sense given in the short catechism of Edward VI., 1552, where we read, “M. Why is this abridgment of the faith termed a symbol? S. A symbol is, as much as to say, a sign, mark, privy token, or watchword, whereby the soldiers of the same camp are known from their enemies. For this reason the abridgment of the faith, whereby the Christians are known from them that are no Christians, is rightly named a symbol.”

The term symbol, importing an emblem or sensible representation, is also applied in the holy eucharist to the sacred elements, which there set forth the body and blood of Christ. (See also Emblem.)

SYMPHONY. In music, an instrumental composition in the form of an overture, &c. The term is popularly applied to short introductory movements on the organ, before anthems and other pieces; also to any portion performed by the instrument without the voices, including preludes, interludes, and postludes, i. e. strains before, in the midst, and at the end of psalmody, and other church music.

The word sumphónea occurs in Daniel iii. 5, 7, 10, 15; being evidently the Greek word συμφωνία, written in Hebrew or Chaldee letters, like other words in the same sentence, as Kaitheros, κιθύρα, (harp,) sabbeca, σαμβύκη, (sacbut,) psanterin, ψαλτήριον, (psaltery,) and which do not occur in the older Hebrew Scriptures. It is translated in our Bible dulcimer. Hardouin (in his note on Plinii Hist. Nat. ix. § 8) considers it to mean a musical instrument. But the majority of scholars, and of classical authorities, give as its meaning, a concert or combination of voices or instruments.

SYNOD. This is a meeting of ecclesiastical persons for the purposes of religion, and it comprehends the provincial synods of every metropolitan, and the diocesan of every bishop within their limits. And these are not of the same authority as general councils, nor do their canons oblige the whole Christian Church, but only that nation, province, or diocese where they were made; but if such canons are agreeable with the Scriptures, and confirmed by general councils, they are in force everywhere. The most famous synods have been held in Africa, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain. It would make a very large volume to treat particularly of those synods which have been held in each of those places, therefore we will refer to those which were assembled here in Britain; and as to that matter, we find that a synod was held here at Winchester, in the time of King Edgar, in which Archbishop Dunstan was president. In this synod the marriage of the clergy was prohibited. There was another held at Oxford, wherein Archbishop Langton was president, who divided the Bible into chapters; and in this synod many constitutions were made for the better government of the church. Another at Clarendon, under Archbishop Becket, in the reign of Henry II., in which some decrees were made concerning the prerogatives 742of the Crown and the privileges of the clergy. Two in the reign of Edward VI. And here we may notice that provincial synods were to be held twice in every year; this appears by the apostolical canons, and likewise by those made in the Council of Nice. But this being found too hard a task for bishops, (who were usually men in years,) especially where the provinces were large, it was disused about the middle of the fifth century: so that some canons were made for synods to be held once in a year, but not abrogating the ancient custom to hold them oftener; and this continued for many ages: but at last this came in like manner to be neglected, and thereupon, about the middle of the fourteenth century, another canon was made in the Council of Basil, for a triennial synod of all the bishops of every province; and in the same council there was another canon for every bishop to hold a diocesan synod once in a year. And even here in Britain, by the ancient constitution of this Church, a synod was to be held once a year, which is now discontinued, and thus the authority of examining things through the province devolved on the archdeacon. In a diocesan synod the bishop always presided, and he usually summoned septem e plebe in every parish in his diocese, to whom he administered an oath to inquire into the state and condition of each parish relating to ecclesiastical affairs, which were called testes synodales, and these men made their presentments in writing, or viva voce in the synod. (See Councils.)

The form of holding these diocesan synods was as follows:—The clergy, in solemn procession, came to the church assigned, at the time appointed by the bishop, and seated themselves according to the priority of their ordinations. Then the deacons and laity were admitted. The bishop, or in his absence the vicar, when the office for the occasion was over, made a solemn exhortation to the audience. Then a sermon was preached; after which, if the clergy had any complaints to make, or anything else to offer, they were heard by the synod. The complaints of the clergy being over, the laity made theirs. Then the bishop proposed his diocesan constitutions to them. After which, if nothing remained to be done, he made a synodical exhortation, by way of injunction, to the clergy; and all concluded with solemn prayers suited to the business. The form at the conclusion of the first day, called Benedictio primæ diei, was this: “Qui dispersos Israel congregat, ipse vos hic et ubique custodiat. Amen. Et non solum vos custodiat, sed ovium suarum custodes idoneos efficiat. Amen. Ut cum summo pastore Christo de gregum suarum pastione gaudeatis in cœlo. Amen. Quod ipse parare dignetur,” &c. The benedictions of the other days were much to the same purpose.

The common time allowed for despatching the business of these synods was three days; and a rubric was settled, to direct the proceedings in each of them. But, if the business could be despatched in a shorter time, the assembly continued no longer than was necessary.

The first thing done in these diocesan synods, was the bishop’s making his synodical inquiries, of which the ancient forms are still extant. Next, the synodical causes were heard. Then the bishop reported to his clergy what had been decreed in large provincial synods. And, lastly, he published his own diocesan constitutions, which being read, and agreed to by the synod, were from that time in force within the diocese, provided they were not contrary to the decrees of some superior council of the province. Of these we have several collections published in the volumes of the English councils, and many more are still remaining in the bishops’ registers.

These diocesan synods were continued in England till the reign of Henry VIII., that is, till the commencement of the Reformation.

Provincial synods are still held pro forma in Ireland, by the archbishop of Dublin, as they were by his predecessor, at the triennial visitations of his province. The constituent number are the same as for convocations, being the bishops of the province, deans, archdeacons, capitular and other proctors, &c. But the synods have no power to make canons.

SYNODALS and SYNODATICUM, by the name, have a plain relation to the holding of synods; but there being no reason why the clergy should pay for their attending the bishop in synod, pursuant to his own citation, nor any footsteps to be found of such a payment by reason of the holding of synods, the name is supposed to have grown from this duty being usually paid by the clergy when they came to the synod. And this in all probability is the same which was anciently called cathedraticum, as paid by the parochial clergy in honour to the episcopal chair, and in token of subjection and obedience thereto. So it stands in the body of the canon law, “No bishop shall demand anything of the churches but the 743honour of the cathedraticum, that is, two shillings” (at the most, saith the Gloss, for sometimes less is given). And the duty which we call synodals is generally such a small payment, which payment was reserved by the bishop upon settling the revenues of the respective churches on the incumbents; whereas before those revenues were paid to the bishop, who had a right to part of them for his own use, and a right to apply and distribute the rest to such uses and in such proportions as the laws of the Church directed.—Gibson.

Synodals are due of common right to the bishop only, so that, if they be claimed or demanded by the archdeacon, or dean and chapter, or any other person or persons, it must be on the foot of composition or prescription.—Id.

And if they be denied where due, they are recoverable in the spiritual court. And, in the time of Archbishop Whitgift, they were declared upon a full hearing to be spiritual profits, and as such to belong to the keeper of the spiritual see vacant.—Id.

Constitutions made in the provincial or diocesan synods were also sometimes called synodals, and were in many cases required to be published in the parish churches: in this sense the word frequently occurs in the ancient directories.

TABERNACLE. Among the Hebrews, a kind of building, in the form of a tent, set up by the express command of God, for the performance of religious worship, sacrifices, &c. (Exod. xxvi., xxvii.)

TABERNACLES, FEAST OF. A solemn festival of the Hebrews, observed after harvest, on the fifteenth day of the month Tisri, instituted to commemorate the goodness of God, who protected the Israelites in the wilderness, and made them dwell in booths when they came out of Egypt. The pyx, or box in which the reserved host is placed on Romish altars, is called in the Missal the Tabernacle.

TALMUD. (Signifying doctrine.) A collection of the doctrines of the religion and morality of the Jews. It consists of two parts: 1. The Misna, or text; literally repetition: that is, a repetition or supplement to the Divine law; which they pretend was delivered to Moses on the mount, and transmitted from him to the members of the Sanhedrim. 2. The Gemara, (perfection, or completion,) which is the commentary. The origin of this work is as follows:—

Judah the Holy had no sooner completed the Misna, but one Rabbi Chun, jealous of his glory, published quite contrary traditions; a collection of which was made under the title of Extravaganta, and inserted with the Misna, in order to compose one and the same body of law.

Notwithstanding that the collection made by Judah seemed to be a complete work, yet two considerable faults were observed in it: one, that it was very confused, the author having reported the opinions of different doctors, without naming them, and determining which of these opinions deserved the preference: the other, (which rendered this body of canon law almost useless,) that it was too short, and resolved but a small part of the doubtful cases and questions that began to be agitated among the Jews.

To remedy these inconveniences, Jochanan, with the assistance of Rab and Samuel, two disciples of Judah the Holy, wrote a commentary upon their master’s work. This is called the Talmud of Jerusalem; either because it was composed in Judea, for the use of the Jews that remained in that country, or because it was written in the common language spoken there. The Jews are not agreed about the time that this part of the Gemara, which signifies Perfection, was made. Some believe it was two hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem; others reckon but a hundred and fifty; and maintain that Rab and Samuel, quitting Judea, went to Babylon, in the two hundred and nineteenth year of the Christian era. However, these are the heads of the second order of doctors, called Gemarists, because they composed the Gemara. (See Gemara.)

There was also a defect in the Jerusalem Talmud, for it contained the opinions of but a small number of doctors. For this reason the Gemarists, or commentators, began a new explication of the traditions. Rabbi Asa, who kept a school at Sora, near Babylon, where he taught forty years, produced a commentary upon Judah’s Misna. He did not finish it; but his sons and scholars put the last hand to it. This is called the Gemara, or Talmud, of Babylon, which is preferred before that of Jerusalem. It is a very large collection, containing the traditions, the canon law of the Jews, and all the questions relating to the Law.

In these two Talmuds is contained the whole of the Jewish religion as it is now possessed by that people, who esteem it equal with the law of God. Some Christians set a great value upon it, whilst others condemn it as a detestable book, 744and full of blasphemies; but a third sort observe a just medium between these opposite opinions.

Though the Talmud was received with general applause by the Jews, yet there started up a new order of doctors, who shook its authority by their doubts. These were called Sebarim, or opiniative doctors, and were looked upon by the Jews as so many sceptics, because they disputed without coming to a determination upon anything.

TARGUM. So the Jews call the Chaldee paraphrases, or expositions, of the Old Testament in the Chaldee language; for the Jewish doctors, in order to make the people understand the text of the Holy Scripture, (after the captivity,) which was read in Hebrew in their synagogues, were forced to explain the law to them in a language they understood; and this was the Chaldean, or that used in Assyria.

The Targums that are now remaining were composed by different persons, upon different parts of Scripture, and are in number eight.

1. The Targum of Onkelos upon the five books of Moses.

2. The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, upon the Prophets, that is, upon Joshua, Judges, the two Books of Samuel, the two Books of Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets.

3. The Targum ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, upon the Law.

4. The Jerusalem Targum, upon the Law.

5. The Targum on the five lesser books, called the Megilloth, that is, Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah.

6. The second Targum upon Esther.

7. The Targum of Joseph the Blind, upon the Book of Job, the Psalms, and the Proverbs.

8. The Targum upon the First and Second Books of Chronicles.

Upon Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, there is no Targum at all. Indeed, a great part of Daniel and Ezra is written originally in Chaldee; and therefore there was no need of a Chaldee paraphrase upon them: but Nehemiah is written wholly in the Hebrew tongue, and no doubt anciently there were Chaldee paraphrases upon all the Hebrew parts of those books, though they are now lost.

The Targum of Onkelos is, without doubt, the most ancient that is now extant. He was certainly older than Jonathan Ben Uzziel, the author of the second Targum, who is supposed to have lived in our Saviour’s time, and who could have no reason to omit the Law in his paraphrase, but that he found Onkelos had done this work with success before him. No Chaldee writing, now extant, comes nearer the style of what is written in that language by Daniel and Ezra, than the Targum of Onkelos, which is a good argument for its antiquity. It is rather a version than a paraphrase; for the Hebrew text is rendered word for word, and for the most part with great exactness.

The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, upon the Prophets, is next to that of Onkelos in the purity of its style, but not in the manner of its composure; for Jonathan takes the liberty of a paraphrast, by enlarging and adding to the text, and by inserting several stories and glosses of his own, which are no reputation to the work. The Jews not only give him the preference to all the disciples of Hillel, but equal him even to Moses himself.

The Targum ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, upon the Law, is none of his, as appears by the style. Who was the true author of it, or when it was composed, is utterly unknown. It seems to have lain long in obscurity among the Jews themselves; for no notice was taken of it till it was published at Venice, about a hundred and fifty years since; and the name of Jonathan, it is probable, was prefixed to it for no other reason than to give it the more credit, and the better to recommend it by that specious title.

The Jerusalem Targum, upon the Law, was so called, because it was written in the Jerusalem dialect. There were three dialects of the Chaldean language. The first was spoken in Babylon, the metropolis of the Assyrian empire. The second was the Commagenian, or Antiochian, being that spoken in Commagena, Antioch, and the rest of Syria. The third was the Jerusalem dialect, which was spoken by the Jews after the captivity. The Babylonian and Jerusalem dialects were written in the same character; but the Antiochian was in a different, and is the same with what we call the Syriac. The purest style of the Jerusalem dialect is, first, in the Targum of Onkelos, and next, in that of Jonathan; but the Jerusalem Targum is written in a most barbarous style, intermixed with a great many foreign words, taken from the Greek, Latin, and Persian languages. This Targum is not a continued paraphrase, but only upon some parts here and there, as the author thought the text most wanted an explication; and sometimes whole chapters are omitted. It 745was written by an unknown hand, and probably some time after the third century.

The fifth Targum, which is that on the Megilloth, and the sixth, which is the second Targum on the book of Esther, are written in the corrupted Chaldee of the Jerusalem dialect; but the author of these is unknown. The seventh, which is upon Job, the Psalms, and the Prophets, is equally corrupt, and said to be written by Joseph the Blind, who is as unknown as the author of the other two. The second Targum on Esther is twice as large as the first, and seems to have been written the last of all the Targums, by reason of the barbarity of its style. There is also a third Targum on Esther. The first Targum upon Esther is a part of the Targum upon Megilloth, which makes mention of the Babylonish Talmud, and therefore must have been written after the year of Christ 500. The last Targum, upon the First and Second Books of Chronicles, was not known till the year 1680, when Beckius, from an old manuscript, published, at Augsburg in Germany, that part which is upon the First Book; the paraphrase upon the Second he published three years afterwards, at the same place.

TE DEUM LAUDAMUS. (“We praise Thee, O God,” &c.) This sublime composition has been referred to several different authors. Some have ascribed it to Ambrose and Augustine, others to Ambrose alone; others, again, to Abondius, Nicetius, bishop of Triers, or Hilary of Poictiers. In truth, it seems that there is no way of determining exactly who was the author of this hymn. Archbishop Usher found it ascribed to Nicetius, in a very ancient Gallican Psalter, and the Benedictine editors of the works of Hilary of Poictiers cite a fragment of a manuscript epistle of Abbo Floriacensis, in which Hilary is unhesitatingly spoken of as its author; but Abbo lived five or six centuries after that prelate, and therefore such a tradition is most doubtful. Some reasons, however, appear to justify the opinion, that Te Deum was composed in the Gallican Church, from which source we also derive the inestimable creed bearing the name of Athanasius. The most ancient allusions to its existence are found in the Rule of Cæsarius, bishop of Arles, who lived in the fifth century, and in that of his successor Aurelian. It has been judged from this, that the Te Deum may probably have been composed by some member of the celebrated monastery of Lerins, which was not far from Arles; or perhaps by Hilary of Arles, who seems to have composed the Athanasian Creed in the fifth century. Another presumption in favour of the same notion is deducible from the wording of this hymn. The verse, “Vouchsafe, O Lord, to keep us this day without sin,” (“Dignare, Domine, die isto sine peccato nos custodire,”) gives reason to think that it was originally composed for the matin, and not for the nocturnal office, for it appears that the day is supposed to have actually commenced. Now Cæsarius and Aurelian both appoint Te Deum to be sung in the morning, while Benedict directed it to be sung in the nocturnal office on Sundays; and thence we may observe that the former appear to have adhered closer to the intentions of the author of this hymn than the latter: that therefore they were better acquainted with the author’s design than Benedict; and therefore the hymn was probably not composed in Italy, but in Gaul.

In the office of matins this hymn occupies the same place as it always has done, namely, after the reading of Scripture. The ancient offices of the English Church gave this hymn the title of the “Psalm Te Deum,” or the “Song of Ambrose and Augustine,” indifferently. As used in this place, it may be considered as a responsory psalm, since it follows a lesson; and here the practice of the Church of England resembles that directed by the Council of Laodicea, which decreed that the psalms and lessons should be read alternately.

In the Roman office it is only used on Sundays and certain festivals; but even on these omitted at certain seasons of the year. In the Church of England it is prescribed for daily use; but the Benedicite may be substituted for it.

TEMPLARS, TEMPLERS, or KNIGHTS OF THE TEMPLE. A religious order instituted at Jerusalem, in the beginning of the twelfth century, for the defence of the holy sepulchre, and the protection of Christian pilgrims. They were first called the Poor of the Holy City, and afterwards assumed the appellation of Templars, because their house was near the temple. The order was founded by Baldwin II., then king of Jerusalem, with the concurrence of the pope; and the principal articles of their rule were, that they should hear the holy office throughout every day; or that, when their military duties should prevent this, they should supply it by a certain number of Paternosters; that they should abstain from flesh four days in the week, and on Friday from eggs and milk meats; that each 746knight might have three horses and one squire, and that they should neither hunt nor fowl. After the ruin of Jerusalem, about 1186, they spread themselves through Germany, and other countries of Europe, to which they were invited by the liberality of the Christians. In the year 1228, this order acquired stability by being confirmed in the Council of Troyes, and subjected to a rule of discipline drawn up by St. Bernard. In every nation they had a particular governor, called Master of the Temple, or of the Militia of the Temple. Their grand-master had his residence at Paris. The order of Templars flourished for some time, and acquired, by the valour of its knights, immense riches, and an eminent degree of military renown. But as their prosperity increased, their vices were multiplied; and their arrogance, luxury, and cruelty rose at last to such a great height, that the order was suppressed in 1312.

TEMPLE. In the Bible, this title generally refers to that house of prayer which Solomon built in Jerusalem, for the honour and worship of God. The name of temple is now properly used for any church or place of worship set apart for the service of Almighty God. Thus the services of the Church are frequently introduced by the words, “The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him.” Here, by the word “temple,” allusion is made to the church in which we have met together to offer our prayers and praises to the Most High.

The church called the Temple Church in London, was built by the Knights-Templars in 1185: and the circular vestibule was built after the fashion of the church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem: as also the church of the Holy Sepulchre at Cambridge, and a few others.

TERMINATOR. A sort of master of the ceremonies in some of the cathedrals of Sicily.—Pini’s Sicilia Sacra.

TERRIER. By Canon 87, the archbishops and all bishops within their several dioceses shall procure (as much as in them lies) a true note and terrier of all the glebes, lands, meadows, gardens, orchards, houses, stocks, implements, tenements, and portions of tithes lying out of their parishes, which belong to any parsonage, vicarage, or rural prebend, to be taken by the view of honest men in every parish, by the appointment of the bishop, whereof the minister to be one; and to be laid up in the bishop’s registry, there to be for a perpetual memory thereof. It may be convenient also to have a copy of the same exemplified, to be kept in the church chest.

These terriers are of greater authority in the ecclesiastical courts, than they are in the temporal; for the ecclesiastical courts are not allowed to be courts of record; and yet even in the temporal courts these terriers are of some weight, when duly attested by the registrar.

Especially if they be signed, not only by the parson and churchwardens, but also by the substantial inhabitants; but if they be signed by the parson only, they can be no evidence for him; so neither (as it seemeth) if they be signed only by the parson and churchwardens, if the churchwardens are of his nomination. But in all cases they are certainly strong evidence against the parson. (See Burn, Eccl. Law, under this head, for the form of a terrier, which is given at great length. It is, however, merely an inventory of the matters enumerated in the above-quoted canon.)

TERSANCTUS. The Latin title of the hymn in the liturgy, beginning “With Angels and Archangels,” &c. This celebrated anthem is probably the most ancient and universally received of all Christian songs of praise. Its position in the established liturgies has always been (as in the Prayer Book) a little antecedent to the prayer of consecration; and the hymn itself does not appear in any other office than that of the Communion. The antiquity of the Tersanctus, and its prevalence in the liturgies of the Eastern and Western Churches, naturally lead to the conclusion that it was derived from the apostolic age, if not from the apostles themselves. It is remarked by Palmer, that no liturgy can be traced to antiquity, in which the people did not unite with the invisible host of heaven in chanting these sublime praises of the Most High God. From the testimony of Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem, we find that the seraphic hymn was used in the liturgy of Antioch and Jerusalem in the fourth century. The Apostolical Constitutions enable us to carry it back to the third century in the East. It is also spoken of by Gregory Nyssen, Cyril of Alexandria, Origen, Hilary of Poictiers, Isidore, and other Fathers, as having formed a part of the liturgy. In the liturgy of Milan it has been used from time immemorial, under the name of Trisagion; in Africa we learn from Tertullian, that it was customarily used in the second century. As has already been observed, (see Preface,) the preface ends just before the words “Holy, holy, 747holy:” and the congregation or choir ought not to audibly join their voices with the priest till this hymn begins.

TESTAMENT, THE OLD AND THE NEW. The title of the Old Testament is given to those books which the Hebrews received as sacred and inspired before the coming of our Lord, in order to distinguish them from those sacred books which contain the doctrines, precepts, and promises of the Christian religion, which are distinguished by the appellation of the New Testament. The appellation of Testament is derived from 2 Cor. iii. 6, 14, in which place the word ἡ Παλαιὰ Διαθήκη and ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη, are by the old Latin writers rendered Antiquum Testamentum and Novum Testamentum. Although the appellation of New Testament is not given by Divine command to the writings of the evangelists and apostles, yet it was adopted in a very early age, (according to Bishop Marsh, in the second century). The title “New Covenant” signifies the book which contains the terms of the New Covenant, upon which God is pleased to offer salvation to mankind, through the mediation of Jesus Christ. But the word Testament seems to have been preferred, as implying that the Christian’s redemption is sealed to him as a son and heir of God; and because the death of Christ as testator is related at large and applied to our benefit. (See Canon of Scripture, Bible, Scripture.)

TESTIMONIAL. A testimonial of good conduct from his college, or from three beneficed clergymen, required of every one that seeks to be admitted into holy orders, is among the safeguards which the Church has appointed for the purity of her ministry. The testimonial is directed to the bishop to whom application is made for orders, and is as follows:

“Whereas our well-beloved in Christ, A. B., hath declared to us his intention of offering himself as candidate for the sacred office of [a deacon], and for that end hath requested of us letters testimonial of his learning and good behaviour; we, therefore, whose names are hereunto subscribed, do testify that the said A. B., having been previously known to us for the space of [three] years last past, hath during that time lived piously, soberly, and honestly, and diligently applied himself to his studies; nor hath he at any time, so far as we know or believe, held, written, or taught anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the united Church of England and Ireland: and, moreover, we believe him in our consciences to be a person worthy to be admitted to the sacred order of [deacons]. In witness whereof,” &c.

It is needless to add, that no conscientious man can sign such a document, without well weighing its terms, and the solemnity of the occasion on which it is required.

The apostle having laid it down as a standing canon in the Church, that “a bishop must be blameless, and have a good report of them that are without,” (1 Tim. iii. 2, 7,) thence the Church of God has, in all ages, taken especial care to require a sufficient satisfaction, that all persons who are to be admitted into that or any other inferior order of the clergy, have such a good report for a pious and virtuous conversation. This Tertullian mentions as a very singular honour of the Christian priesthood. In pursuance of which practice of the ancient Church, our Church of England has forbidden the bishop to admit any person into sacred orders, “except he shall then exhibit letters testimonial of his good life and conversation, under the seal of some college in Cambridge or Oxford, where before he remained, or of three or four grave ministers, together with the subscription and testimony of other credible persons, who have known his life and behaviour by the space of three years next before.”—Can. 33. The same is further provided for by our statute law: “None shall be made minister, unless he first bring to the bishop of that diocese, from men known to the bishop to be of sound religion, a testimonial both of his honest life, and of his professing the doctrine expressed in the said articles,” 13 Eliz. chap. xii.—Dr. Nicholls.

Such as sign these testimonials have it put into their power to discover evil men, and commend only those that are worthy: wherefore, since so great a trust is reposed in them, they ought never to sign any testimonial which they know to be false; yea, which they do not know to be true; lest they become guilty of bearing false witness, and mislead the bishop, who cannot see all things with his own eyes, nor hear all with his own ears, and so must rely on others to direct his choice. And let him be ever so desirous to keep out wicked pastors, an hypocrite commended by eminent hands may deceive him; and then the dishonour of God and mischief to souls, which are the sad consequence of such misinformation, are to be charged only upon those who, for fear, favour, or negligence, signed the false certificate; who deserve a severe punishment in this 748world, if our law did allow it: however, they shall certainly answer for it in the next world. And I heard a most reverend and worthy prelate (Archbishop Dolben) charge his clergy, “not to impose upon him by signing testimonials which they did not know to be true, as they would answer it to him at the dreadful day of judgment.” Which being duly considered will, I hope, prevent that evil custom of giving men’s hands, out of custom or compliment, to mere strangers, or to oblige a friend that we know doth not deserve it.—Dean Comber.

A sham testimonial of life and manners, doth not only deceive the bishop in a point of the nicest concernment, both with regard to his office and his reputation, but does an injury to the Church itself, and affects the interests and credit of the ministry at large. And therefore, to attest worthy characters of unworthy persons, in order to bring them into a situation where they may expose themselves and their functions, do public mischief, and give open scandal, is destitute of any justifiable pretence; and I wish I could add it were equally destitute of any precedent.

I must acknowledge that human respects, and solicitations of acquaintance, and other mere social regards, are great temptations with people of kind dispositions, to too easy a compliance in granting this favour; and such persons may be sometimes drawn into the signing of testimonials, when their judgment doth not concur with their good nature. I am loth to blame any friendly or neighbourly qualities, yet sometimes they do deserve blame, as in this case in particular; where they are the occasions of a mischief which much better qualities cannot repair, or make sufficient amends for.—Archdeacon Sharp.

TEXT. The letter of the sacred Scriptures, more especially in the original languages. In a more limited sense, the word text is used for any short sentence out of the Scripture, quoted in proof of a dogmatic position,—as an auctoritee, as it was formerly called,—or taken as the subject or motto of a discourse from the pulpit. Thus Chaucer has—

“He needeth not to speken but of game,

And let auctorites in Goddes name

To preching, and to scole eke of clergie.”

And so a sermon is called “Expositio auctoritatis.”

The custom of taking a text for a sermon is probably coeval with that of preaching set discourses; and it is needless to remark, that the use of texts as authority in doctrinal points is of the very essence of true theology, and was ever the custom even of those who, professing the name of Christians, denied the truth of Christ. Even the most abominable and shameless heretics quoted Scripture for their worst tenets. A simple Christian, therefore, may well be on his guard against receiving everything for which a text is quoted, remembering that the “inspired writings are an inestimable treasure to mankind, for so many sentences, so many truths. But then the true sense of them must be known; otherwise, so many sentences, so many authorized falsehoods.”

THANKSGIVING. Giving of thanks is an essential part of Divine worship, as St. Paul expressly declares to St. Timothy, (1 Tim. ii. 1,) and has ever formed a part of the service both of Jews and Christians. In our own Book of Common Prayer there are many forms of thanksgiving, particular and general: as especially the general thanksgiving, which was added (being composed, as is conjectured, by Bishop Sanderson) at the last review, and appointed for daily use; and the eucharistic hymn, always used in the holy communion, sometimes with an appropriate preface, and introduced with the versicles,

“Let us give thanks unto our Lord God.

“It is meet and right so to do.

“It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should at all times and in all places give thanks,” &c.

But there are, besides, particular thanksgivings appointed for deliverance from drought, rain, famine, war, tumult, and pestilence; and there is an entire service of thanksgiving for women after child-birth, (see Churching of Women,) and certain days on which we commemorate great deliverances of our Church and nation, are marked also with a solemn service of thanksgiving. (See Forms of Prayer.)

THANKSGIVING, THE GENERAL. The general thanksgiving may perhaps, to some, appear superfluous, after we have thanked and praised God in the use of the psalms and hymns. But it was inserted at the Restoration, because others complained it was wanting.—Abp. Secker.

After the general intercession, there follows likewise a general thanksgiving. For though in the psalms and hymns after the lessons, with the several doxologies interspersed, we have everywhere “set forth God’s most worthy praise,” yet it seemed meet also, in a distinct and appropriate form of thanksgiving, “to render thanks for the great benefits we have received at his hands,” which, according to the first exhortation, we therefore do, 749beginning with that original blessing, “our creation,” then “preservation,” attended with all these secondary benefits and “blessings of life,” “but above all,” because the greatest of all, “our redemption,” attended with all “the means of grace and hope of glory,” thus ascending gradually through the long scale of blessings received at God’s hand, from temporal to spiritual, from the first to the last, from our coming forth to our returning to him again.—Dr. Bisse.

Indeed, this is a more methodical summary of the several mercies of God “to us and to all men,” than we had before: it furnishes an opportunity of thanking him more expressly for the late instances of his loving-kindness to the members of our own congregation; and besides, as we cannot be too thankful to God, the acknowledgments, which we offered up at the beginning of the service, are very properly repeated at the end. For surely we ought to ask nothing of God, without remembering what we have received from him: which naturally excites both our faith and resignation, and prepares the way for that admirable collect, with which we conclude.—Abp. Secker.

After enumerating the blessings for which we return our humble and hearty thanks, the form from eucharistic becomes petitionary. We beseech God to make us truly sensible of his mercies, and really thankful for them, that we may show our gratitude, and promote his glory, not only by celebrating his praises day by day in the public assemblies of the Church, but by walking in the paths of holiness and righteousness all our lives. These petitions we enforce through the merits of Jesus Christ; and we conclude the whole with a doxology, in which we ascribe to the Son, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory, world without end. Amen.—Shepherd.

THEOLOGAL. An officer in some foreign cathedrals, generally a canon, often a dignitary, whose business it was to profess theology.

THEOLOGY, (From Θεὸς, God, and λόγος, a discourse.) A discourse concerning God, it being the business of this science to treat of the Deity. The heathens had their theologues or divines, as well as the Christians; and Eusebius and Augustine distinguished the theology of the heathens into three sorts: first, the fabulous and poetical; secondly, natural, which was explained by philosophy and physics; the third was political or civil, which last consisted chiefly in the solemn service of the gods, and in the belief which they had in oracles and divinations, together with the ceremonies wherewith their worship was performed.

Divinity among the Christians is divided into positive and scholastical; the first being founded upon fact and institution, having the Scriptures, councils, and Fathers for its bottom and foundation, and, properly speaking, this is true divinity: the other, called scholastical, is principally supported by reason, which is made use of to show, that the Christian theology contains nothing inconsistent with natural light; and with this view it is that Thomas Aquinas makes use of the authority of philosophers, and arguments from natural reason, because he was engaged with philosophers, who attacked the Christian religion with arguments from those topics.

THEOPHORI. (Θεὸς and φέρω.) See Christophori.

THOMAS’S, ST., DAY. A festival of the Christian Church observed on the 21st of December, in commemoration of St. Thomas the apostle.

THOMAS, ST., CHRISTIANS OF, who are of the Chaldæan and Nestorian sect, notwithstanding the several attempts made to reform them, remain firm to their ancient customs, and if they sometimes comply with the Popish missionaries, it is but in outward appearance: when they are desired to submit to the Church of Rome, they answer, that as St. Peter was chief of that Church, so St. Thomas was head of theirs, and both Churches were independent one of another, and they stand stedfast in acknowledging the patriarch of Babylon, without minding the pope: they hold, as Moreri relates, Nestorius’s opinion, receive no images, and do not much reverence the cross. They hold that the souls of saints do not see God before the day of judgment. They allow three sacraments, viz. baptism, orders, and the eucharist: but even in these they do not agree, there being several forms of baptism in the same Church: they abhor auricular confession; and for their consecration make use of small cakes, made with oil and salt; the wine they use is nothing but water in which they steep raisins: they observe no age for orders, but make priests at seven, eighteen, twenty, &c., who may marry as often as their wives die. They administer no sacrament without their fees or reward, and, as for marriage, they make use of the first priest they meet with. They have all an extraordinary respect for the patriarch of Babylon, chief of the Nestorians, and cannot abide to 750hear the pope named in their churches, where, for the most part, they neither have curate nor vicar, but the eldest presides: it is true they go to mass on Sundays, not that they think themselves obliged in conscience to do so, or that they would sin mortally if they did not. Their children, unless it be in case of sickness, are not baptized till the fiftieth day. At the death of friends, the kindred and relations keep an eight days’ fast in memory of the deceased: they observe the times of Advent and Lent, the festivals of our Lord, and many of the saints’ days, those especially that relate to St. Thomas, the Dominica in Albis, or Sunday after Easter, in memory of the famous confession which St. Thomas on that day made of Christ, after he had been sensibly cured of his unbelief; another on the 1st of June, celebrated not only by Christians, but by Moors and Pagans. The people who come to his sepulchre on pilgrimage, carry away a little of the red earth of the place where he was interred, which they keep as an inestimable treasure, and believe it to be a sovereign remedy against diseases: their priests are shaven in fashion of a cross; but Simon does not charge them with so many errors as Meneses does, from whom this account is taken.

THRONE. The bishop’s principal seat in his cathedral. At St. Paul’s the bishop has two thrones; that at the end of the stalls probably representing the episcopal throne, properly so called, which he assumed at the more solemn part of the service; that more westerly his ordinary seat, or stall. In old times the bishop of London often occupied the stall usually assigned to the dean, as is still the custom at Ely and Carlisle. The bishop’s throne in the ancient basilicas and churches was at the apex of the apsis, a semicircle behind the altar. The marble chair of the archbishop at Canterbury, in which he is enthroned, formerly occupied a place behind the altar; a remnant of the old arrangement, as appears from Darl’s Canterbury. The cumbrous pew occupied by the doctors and university officers at St. Mary’s, Cambridge, is called the throne.

THUNDERING LEGION. (See Legion.)

THURIFICATI. In times of persecution Christians who were brought to be examined before the heathen tribunal, were permitted to escape punishment by casting frankincense on an altar dedicated to an idol. This was of course an act of idolatry, and amounted to open and unreserved apostasy: some however there were who were betrayed into this act by present fear, rather than a real wish to deny Christ, and who sought afterwards, by a rigid penance, the peace of the Church. These were called Thurificati. (See Libellatici and Sacrificati.)

TIARA. The name of the pope’s triple crown. The tiara and keys are the badges of the papal dignity, the tiara of his civil rank, and the keys of his jurisdiction; for as soon as the pope is dead, his arms are represented with the tiara alone, without the keys. The ancient tiara was a round high cap. John XIII. first encompassed it with a crown; Boniface VIII. added a second crown; and Benedict XIII. a third.

TILES. The use of ornamented tiles in churches is at least as old as the Norman æra, and was never discontinued till the fall of Gothic art. A very valuable paper on the arrangement of tiles, by Lord Alwyne Compton, will be found in the first number of the collected papers of the Northamptonshire and other architectural societies.

TIPPET. In the 74th canon, in which decency in apparel is enjoined to ministers, it is appointed that “All deans, masters of colleges, archdeacons, and prebendaries, in cathedral and collegiate churches, (being priests or deacons,) doctors in divinity, law, and physic, bachelors in divinity, masters of arts, and bachelors of law, having any ecclesiastical living, shall usually wear gowns with standing collars and sleeves straight at the hands, or wide sleeves, as is used at the universities, with hoods or tippets of silk or sarsenet, and square caps.” And that all other ministers admitted, or to be admitted, into that function shall also usually wear the like apparel as is aforesaid, except tippets only. (See “The Tippets of the Canons Ecclesiastical,” by G. I. French, London, 1850.) And in the 58th canon: “It shall be lawful for such ministers as are not graduates to wear upon their surplices, instead of hoods, some decent tippet of black, so it be not silk.” See Mr. Gilbert French’s ingenious treatise on the Tippets of the Canons Ecclesiastical: from which it would appear that the present black scarf worn by some of the English clergy represents three things: 1. The stole; 2. the chaplain’s scarf; 3. the choir tippet. The chaplain’s scarf is a remnant of the ancient badges, or liveries, worn by the members of noblemen’s households, their chaplains included. The choir tippet grew out of the ancient almutium, or amice, that is, a vesture which covered the shoulders, and included the hood: the liripipium, or pendent part of the hood, 751sometimes hanging singly behind, (as in our modern hoods,) sometimes in duplicate before, like the scarf. In process of time the hood became separated from this pendent part in front, and hence the choir tippet. It is certain that the tippet so called, often made of sables or furs, was worn in the form of the scarf, by dignitaries of the Church and State for many ages in England. The scarf has been called a tippet immemorially in Ireland, and within memory in many parts of England. The law of the Church therefore seems to be this, that all ecclesiastics (whether priests or deacons) being prebendaries or of higher rank in cathedral and collegiate churches, and all priests or deacons being Masters of Arts or of higher degree, may wear either hoods or tippets of silk: and all non-graduate ministers (whether priests or deacons) may not wear hoods, but only tippets not of silk. Whence the tippet is to be worn by all clergymen. The 58th canon however is explicit as to the use of hoods by graduates. By the constant usage of cathedrals, both hood and scarf are worn by all capitular graduates.—Jebb.

TITHES, in the religious application of the phrase, is a certain portion, or allotment, for the maintenance of the priesthood, being the tenth part of the produce of land, cattle, or other branches of wealth. It is an income, or revenue, common both to the Jewish and Christian priesthood.

The priests among the Jews had no share allowed them in the division of the land, that they might attend wholly upon Divine service, and not have their thoughts diverted by the business of tillage, or feeding cattle, or any other secular employment. Their maintenance arose chiefly from the first-fruits, offerings, and tithes.

The ancient Christians, it is generally thought, held the Divine right of tithes, that is, that the payment of tithes was not merely a ceremonial or political command, but of moral and perpetual obligation; though Bellarmine, Selden, and others place them upon another foot. St. Jerome says expressly, that the law about tithes (to which he adds first-fruits) was to be understood to continue in its full force in the Christian Church. And both Origen and St. Augustine confirm the same opinion.

But why, then, were not tithes exacted by the apostles at first, or by the fathers in the ages immediately following? For it is generally agreed, that tithes were not the original maintenance of ministers under the gospel. It is answered, first, that tithes were paid to the priests and Levites, in the time of Christ and his apostles; and the synagogue must be buried, before these things could be orderly brought into use in the Church. Secondly, in the times of the New Testament, there was an extraordinary maintenance, by a community of all things; which supplied the want of tithes. Thirdly, paying tithes, as the circumstances of the Church then stood, could not conveniently be practised; for this requires that some whole state or kingdom profess Christianity, and the Church be under the protection of the magistrates; which was not the case in the apostolical times. Besides, the inhabitants of the country, from whom the tithes of fruits must come, were the latest converts to Christianity.

The common opinion is, that tithes began first to be generally settled upon the Church in the fourth century, when the magistrates protected the Church, and the empire was generally converted from heathenism. Some think Constantine settled them by a law upon the Church; but there is no law of that emperor’s now extant, that makes express mention of any such thing. However, it is certain tithes were paid to the Church before the end of the fourth century, as Mr. Selden has proved out of Cassian, Eugippius, and others. The reader may see this whole matter historically deduced, through many centuries, by that learned author.

The custom of paying tithes, or offering a tenth of what a man enjoys, is not so peculiar to the Jewish and Christian law, but that we find some traces of it even among the heathens. Xenophon has preserved an inscription upon a column near a temple of Diana, whereby the people were admonished to offer the tenth part of their revenues every year to the goddess. And Festus assures us, the ancients gave tithe of everything to their gods.

Before the promulgation of the law, Abraham set the example of paying tithes, in giving the tenth of the spoils to Melchisedech, king of Salem, at his return from his expedition against Chedorlaomer and the four confederate kings. And Jacob imitated the piety of his grandfather in this respect, when he vowed to the Lord the tithe of all the substance he might acquire in Mesopotamia. (See Revenues, Ecclesiastical.)

TITLE. (See Orders.) Canon 33. “It has been long since provided by many decrees of the ancient Fathers, that none should be admitted, either deacon or priest, who had not first some certain place where 752he might use his function: according to which examples we do ordain, that henceforth no person shall be admitted into sacred orders, except (1.) he shall at that time exhibit to the bishop, of whom he desireth imposition of hands, a presentation of himself to some ecclesiastical preferment then void in the diocese; or (2.) shall bring to the said bishop a true and undoubted certificate, that either he is provided of some church within the said diocese where he may attend the cure of souls, or (3.) of some minister’s place vacant either in the cathedral church of that diocese, or in some other collegiate church therein also situate, where he may execute his ministry; or (4.) that he is a fellow, or in right as a fellow, or (5.) to be a conduct or chaplain in some college in Cambridge or Oxford; or (6.) except he be a Master of Arts of five years’ standing, that liveth of his own charge in either of the universities; or (7.) except by the bishop himself that doth ordain him minister, he be shortly after to be admitted either to some benefice or curateship then void. And if any bishop shall admit any person into the ministry that hath none of these titles, as is aforesaid, then he shall keep and maintain him with all things necessary, till he do prefer him to some ecclesiastical living; and if the said bishop refuse so to do, he shall be suspended by the archbishop, being assisted with another bishop, from giving of orders by the space of a year.” The same rules apply to the Irish portion of the united Church.