Chapter XII: Preface: To the Seventh Edition (11)

The division of the Scriptures into chapters, as they are at present, took place in the middle ages. Some attribute it to Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, in the reigns of John and Henry III. But the real author of this invention was Hugo de Sancto Caro, commonly called Hugo Cardinalis, from his being the first Dominican raised to the degree of cardinal. This Hugo flourished about the year 1240. He wrote a Comment on the Scriptures, and projected the first Concordance, which is that of the Latin Vulgate Bible. As the intention of this work was to render the finding of any word or passage in the Scriptures more easy, it became necessary to divide the book into sections, and the sections into subdivisions. These sections are the chapters into which the Bible has been divided since that time. But the subdivision of the chapters was not then in verses as at present. Hugo subdivided them by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, which were placed in the margin at an equal distance from each other, according to the length of the chapters. About the year 1445, Mordecai Nathan, a famous Jewish Rabbi, improved Hugo’s invention, and subdivided the chapters into verses, in the manner they are at present.

The first English Bible we read of was that translated by Wickliff, about the year 1360. A translation of the New Testament by Wickliff was printed by Lewis, about 1731, and the whole of Wickliff’s translation has lately been published at Oxford. J. de Trevisa, who died about 1398, is also said to have translated the whole Bible; but whether any copies of his translation are remaining, does not appear. The first printed Bible in our language was that translated by W. Tindal, assisted by Miles Coverdale, printed abroad in 1526; but most of the copies were bought up and burnt by Bishop Tunstal and Sir Thomas More. Of this edition but two copies are known to exist, one of which was discovered by Archdeacon Cotton, in St. Paul’s Library. It only contained the New Testament, and was revised and republished by the same person in 1530. The prologues and prefaces added to it reflect on the bishops and clergy; but this edition was also suppressed, and the copies burnt. In 1532, Tindal and his associates finished the whole Bible, except the Apocrypha, and printed it abroad; but while he was afterwards preparing a second edition, he was taken up and burnt for heresy in Flanders. On Tindal’s death, his work was carried on by Coverdale, and John Rogers, superintendent of an English Church in Germany, and the first martyr in the reign of Queen Mary, who translated the Apocrypha, and revised Tindal’s translation, comparing it with the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German, and adding prefaces and notes from Luther’s Bible. The earliest edition was printed in 1535, it is supposed at Zurich; though the book has no place nor name. He dedicated the whole to Henry VIII. in 1537, under the borrowed name of Thomas Matthews; whence this has been usually called Matthews’ Bible. It is supposed to have been printed at Hamburgh, and licence obtained for publishing it in England, by the favour of Archbishop Cranmer, and the Bishops Latimer and Shaxton. The first Bible printed by authority in England, and publicly set up in churches, was this same Tindal’s version, revised and compared with the Hebrew, and in many places amended, by Miles Coverdale, afterwards bishop of Exeter; and examined after him by Archbishop Cranmer, who added a preface to it; whence this was called Cranmer’s, or the great Bible. It was printed in 1539 by Grafton and Whitchurch, and in 1540 by Whitchurch, (some copies have “Richard Grafton,”) and published in 1540; and, by a royal proclamation, every parish was obliged to set one of the copies in their church, under the penalty of forty shillings a month: yet, two years after, the Popish bishops obtained its suppression by the king. It was restored under Edward VI., suppressed again under Queen Mary’s reign, and restored again in the first year of Queen Elizabeth, and a new edition of it given, 1562, printed by Harrison. Some English exiles at Geneva, in Queen Mary’s reign, viz. Goodman, Gilbie, Sampson, Cole, Whittingham, and Knox, made a new translation, printed there in 1560, the New Testament having been printed in 1557; hence called the Geneva Bible, containing the variations of readings, marginal annotations, &c., on account of which it was much valued by the Puritan party in that and the following reigns. Coverdale has also been supposed to have had a part in this version; but from what is known of his movements, it appears impossible that he should have been concerned in it. Archdeacon Cotton says, “The first edition of this version was for many years the most popular one in England, as its numerous editions may testify. After the appearance of King James’s translation, the use of it seems to have declined; yet a fondness for its notes still lingered; and we have several instances of their being attached to editions of the royal translation, one of which kind was printed so lately as 1715.” Archbishop Parker resolved on a new translation for the public use of the Church; and engaged the bishops and other learned men to take each a share or portion; these, being afterwards joined together and printed, with short annotations, in 1568, in large folio, by Richard Jugge, made, what was afterwards called, the Great English Bible, and commonly the Bishops’ Bible. In 1569 it was also published in octavo, in a small but fine black letter; and here the chapters were divided into verses, but without any breaks for them, in which the method of the Geneva Bible was followed, which was the first English Bible where any distinction of verses was made. It was afterwards printed in large folio, with corrections, and several prolegomena, in 1572; this is called Matthew Parker’s Bible. The initial letters of each translator’s name were put at the end of his part; _ex. gr._ at the end of the Pentateuch, W. E. for William Exon; that is, William [Alley], bishop of Exeter, whose allotment ended there; at the end of Samuel, R. M. for Richard Menevensis, or Richard [Davies], bishop of St. David’s, to whom the second allotment fell, and so with the rest. The archbishop overlooked, directed, examined, and finished the whole. This translation was used in the churches for forty years, though the Geneva Bible was more read in private houses, being printed above twenty times in as many years. King James bore to the Geneva version an inveterate hatred, on account of the notes, which, at the Hampton Court conference, he charged as partial, untrue, seditious, &c. The Bishops’ Bible, too, had its faults. The king frankly owned that he had seen no good translation of the Bible in English; but he thought that of Geneva the worst of all. After the translation of the Bible by the bishops, two other private versions had been made of the New Testament; the first by Laurence Thompson, from Beza’s Latin edition, with the notes of Beza, published in 1582, in quarto, and afterwards in 1589, varying very little from the Geneva Bible; the second by the Romanists at Rheims, in 1584, called the Rhemish Bible, or Rhemish translation. These translators finding it impossible to keep the people from having the Scriptures in their vulgar tongue, resolved to give a version of their own, as favourable to their cause as might be. It was printed on large paper, with a fair letter and margin. One complaint against it was, its retaining a multitude of Hebrew and Greek words untranslated, for want, as the editors express it, of proper and adequate terms in the English to render them by; as the words _azymes_, _tunike_, _holocaust_, _prepuce_, _pasche_, &c.: however, many of the copies were seized by Queen Elizabeth’s searchers, and confiscated; and Thomas Cartwright was solicited by Secretary Walsingham to refute it; but after some progress had been made in it, Archbishop Whitgift prohibited his proceeding further, judging it improper that the doctrine of the Church of England should be committed to the defence of a Puritan. He appointed Dr. Fulke in his place, who refuted the Rhemists with great spirit and learning. Cartwright’s Refutation was also afterwards published in 1618, under Archbishop Abbot. About thirty years after their New Testament, the Roman Catholics published a translation of the Old, at Douay, 1609 and 1610, from the Vulgate, with annotations, so that the English Roman Catholics have now the whole Bible in their mother tongue; though it is to be observed, they are forbidden to read it without a licence from their superiors: and it is a curious fact, that there is not an edition of the Bible which does not lie under the ban of one or of all the popes, most of them being in the Index Expurgatorius. The last English Bible was that which proceeded from the Hampton Court conference in 1603: where, many exceptions being made to the Bishops’ Bible, King James gave order for a new one: not, (as the preface expresses it,) for a translation altogether new, nor yet to make a good one better, or, of many good ones, one best. Fifty-four learned men were appointed to this office by the king, as appears by his letter to the archbishop, dated 1604; which being three years before the translation was entered upon, it is probable seven of them were either dead, or had declined the task; since Fuller’s list of the translators makes but forty-seven, who, being ranged under six divisions, entered on their province in 1607. It was published in 1611 in fol. by Barker, with a dedication to James, and a learned preface; and is commonly called King James’s Bible. After this, all the other versions dropped, and fell into disuse, except the Epistles and Gospels in the Common Prayer Book, which were still continued according to the Bishops’ translation till the alteration of the liturgy in 1661, and the Psalms and Hymns, which are to this day continued as in the old version. See for a full list of the editions of the English Bible, _Archd. Cotton’s List of the Editions of the English Bible_, &c.

The New Testament was translated into Irish in the 16th century. Nicholas Walsh, chancellor of St. Patrick’s, and John Kearney, treasurer of the same cathedral, began this work in 1573. In 1577 Walsh was appointed bishop of Ossory, but still proceeded in his undertaking, till he was murdered in 1585. Some years before this, Nehemiah Donnellan (who was archbishop of Tuam in 1595) had joined Walsh and Kearney in their undertaking. This translation was completed by William O’Donnell, or Daniel, successor of Donnellan in the archiepiscopal see, and published in 1603. Bishop Bedell procured the Old Testament to be translated by Mr. King, who being ignorant of the original languages, executed it from the English version. Bedell revised it, comparing it with the Hebrew, the LXX., and the Italian version of Diodati. He supported Mr. King, during the undertaking, with his utmost ability, and, when the translation was finished, would have printed it at his own house, if he had not been prevented by the troubles in Ireland. This translation (together with Archbishop Daniel’s version of the New Testament) was printed in London in 1685, at the expense of the celebrated Robert Boyle.—_King’s Primer of the Church History of Ireland._ _Horne’s Introduction to the Holy Scriptures._

The Welsh version (the New Testament only) was published in the 16th century. The act of 5 Eliz. c. 28, directed that the Bible and Prayer Book should be translated into Welsh; committing the direction of this version to the four Welsh bishops. The translators were, Thomas Huet, precentor of St. David’s, Richard Davies, bishop of St. David’s, and William Salesbury. It was printed in London in 1567. The former edition was revised, and the Old Testament translated, chiefly by William Morgan, bishop of Llandaff, afterwards of St. Asaph. This was printed in 1588, and was revised by Richard Parry, bishop of St. Asaph, and reprinted in 1620: the basis of all subsequent editions.—_Horne’s Introd._

The Manx version of the Bible was begun by the exertions of Bishop Wilson, by whom the Gospel of St. Matthew only was printed. His successor, Bishop Hilderley, had the New Testament completed and printed between the years 1756 and 1760. The Old Testament was completed two days before his death in 1772.—_Horne’s Introd._ _Butler’s Life of Bishop Hilderley._

By the 80th canon, “a Bible of the largest volume” is one of those things which the churchwardens are bound to provide for every parish church.

BIDDING PRAYER. The formulary which the Church of England, in the 55th of the canons of 1603, directs to be used before all sermons, lectures, and homilies, is called the Bidding Prayer, because in it the preacher is directed to _bid_ or exhort the people to pray for certain specified objects. The custom of bidding prayers is very ancient, as may be seen in St. Chrysostom’s and other liturgies, where the biddings occur frequently, and are called Allocutions.

The 55th canon of the Convocation of 1603, is as follows: “Before all sermons, lectures, and homilies, the preachers and ministers shall move the people to join with them in prayer, in _this form, or to this effect_, as briefly as conveniently they may: ‘Ye shall pray for CHRIST’S Holy Catholic Church, that is, for the whole congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world, and especially for the Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland. And herein I require you most especially to pray for the king’s most excellent Majesty, our sovereign Lord James, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, and supreme governor in these his realms, and all other his dominions and countries, over all persons, in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as temporal. Ye shall also pray for our gracious Queen Anne, the noble Prince Henry, and the rest of the king and queen’s royal issue. Ye shall also pray for the ministers of GOD’S holy word and sacraments, as well archbishops and bishops, as other pastors and curates. Ye shall also pray for the king’s most honourable council, and for all the nobility and magistrates of this realm, that all and every of these in their several callings may serve truly and faithfully, to the glory of GOD, and the edifying and well-governing of His people, remembering the account that they must make. Also ye shall pray for the whole commons of this realm, that they may live in the true faith and fear of God, in humble obedience to the king, and brotherly charity one to another. Finally, let us praise GOD for all those which are departed out of this life in the faith of CHRIST, and pray unto GOD that we may have grace to direct our lives after their good example, that, this life ended, we may be made partakers with them of the glorious resurrection in the life everlasting,’ always concluding with the LORD’S Prayer.”

The special pleading of some Presbyterians and their advocates, renders it necessary to observe, that the Church of Scotland alluded to, is not the present Presbyterian establishment.

The assertion made by the adversaries of the Church of England is this, that the 55th canon bids us pray for the Church of Scotland, and must have recognised “that Church under a Presbyterian form as it now is, because none other, at that time, existed.”

Now we may commence our observations by remarking upon the extreme improbability of the alleged fact, that those who passed the 55th canon should contemplate in the Bidding Prayer, the Presbyterian community of Scotland, and regard it as a sister to the Churches of England and Ireland.

The leading members of the Convocation were, Andrewes, Overall, and King, eminent men, and of most decided views on Church government. Can the student of ecclesiastical history refrain from smiling when he is told that a Convocation of the English clergy, headed by these divines, who had already given a character to the age in which they lived, intended to place the “Holy Kirk,” as the Presbyterians styled their denomination, on the same footing as the Churches of England and Ireland?

The president of the Convocation was Bancroft. Dr. Sumner has taught us how immense are the powers which the president of a Convocation possesses, and how unscrupulously those powers can be used to silence the Convocation, if it be suspected that the majority of the members differ in opinion from the president. Bishop Bancroft was certainly not more likely to be tolerant of opposition than our present primate, and what Bancroft’s opinion of Presbyterianism was, is stated in a sermon which he published. Of “the Holy Kirk,” as the Presbyterians called themselves, Bancroft said that “they perverted the meaning of the Scriptures for the maintenance of false doctrine, heresy, and schism,” and he likens that “Holy Kirk” to “the devil’s chapel in the churchyard in which Christ hath erected his Church.” We consider Bancroft’s language as unjustifiably violent; but such _being_ his language, it is monstrous to suppose that he intended to place that Kirk, in his estimation so unholy, on the same footing as the Churches of England and Ireland, or that he would not have discontinued the Convocation, if he had suspected that it would recognise that Kirk as a sister Church.

The king who gave his consent to the canons, and who, in giving his consent, acted, not as a sovereign in these days, on the advice of his ministers, but on his own authority, was James I. And King James’s opinion on Presbyterianism was sufficiently decided, and by this time well known:

“That bishops ought to be in the Church, I have ever maintained as an apostolic institution, and so the ordinance of God; contrary to the Puritans, and likewise to Bellarmine, who denies that bishops have their jurisdiction immediately from GOD. (But it is no wonder he takes the Puritans’ side, since Jesuits are nothing but Puritanpapists.) And as I ever maintained the state of bishops and the ecclesiastical hierarchy for order’ sake, so was I ever an enemy to the confused anarchy or parity of the Puritans, as well appeareth in my _Basilicon Doron_. Heaven is governed by order, and all the good angels there; nay, hell itself could not subsist without some order; and the very devils are divided into legions, and have their chieftains: how can any society then upon earth exist without order and degrees? And therefore I cannot enough wonder with what brazen face this Answerer could say, _that I was a Puritan in Scotland and an enemy to Protestants_: I that was persecuted by Puritans there, not from my birth only, but ever since four months before my birth? I that, in the year of God 1584, erected bishops, and depressed all their popular parity, I then being not eighteen years of age? I that in my said book to my son do speak ten times more bitterly of them nor of the Papists; having in my second edition thereof affixed a long apologetic preface, only _in odium Puritanorum_? I that, for the space of six years before my coming into England, laboured nothing so much as to depress their parity and reerect bishops again? Nay, if the daily commentaries of my life and actions in Scotland were written, (as Julius Cæsar’s were,) there would scarcely a month pass in all my life, since my entering into the 13th year of my age, wherein some accident or other would not convince the cardinal of a lie in this point. And surely I give a fair commendation to the Puritans in that place of my book, where I affirm that I have found greater honesty with the Highland and Border thieves than with that sort of people.”—_Premonition to the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance_, p. 44.

Now is it credible that a monarch, despotic in his disposition, and peculiarly despotic in what related to the Church; in an age when the supremacy was asserted and exercised with as much of inconsiderate tyranny as the most determined liberal of the present age could wish or recommend,—is it credible that a despotic sovereign, holding these opinions, would give his sanction to a canon which would raise the system he dreaded and abhorred to a parity with the Church of England and Ireland?

Certainly the advocates of Presbyterianism must be prepared to believe things very incredible to men of reasoning minds, if they can believe this to be probable.

But if we refer to history, what we find to be thus improbable, is proved to be impossible. “The Church, under a Presbyterian form, as it now is,” did _not_ at that time exist as a recognised body, or an establishment. We will refer for proof, in the first place, to the Compendium of the Laws of Scotland, published by authority, where we read that “From the time that the Assembly of Perth was held, (1597,) the _Presbyterian Constitution_ of the Church, as established in 1592, and the legitimate authority of its General Assemblies and other judicatories, _may be regarded as subverted by the interferences of King James the Sixth_. On the 19th December, 1597, soon after the Assemblies of Perth and Dundee, he brought his projects under the consideration of parliament; when an act was passed ordaining that such pastors and ministers as his Majesty should at any time please to invest with the office, place, and dignity of bishop, abbot, or other prelate, should, in all time hereafter, have vote in parliament, in the same way as any prelate was accustomed to have; declaring that all bishoprics presently vacant, or which might afterwards become vacant, should be given by his Majesty to actual preachers and ministers. Henceforward, therefore, and indeed from the Assembly at Perth, (1597,) the Church of Scotland must be regarded as Episcopalian;”—in principle, we may add, though not fully developed.”—_Compendium of the Laws of the Church of Scotland_, part ii. p. 36.

In the year 1600, “the Presbyterian form of government was, after eight years of intolerable agitation, abolished by the king, with the full consent of an overwhelming majority of the ministers and the applause of the people, whose opinions seem to have been changed by experience of its tyranny.”—_Stephens’s History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 417.

The Scottish parliament had also passed an act, in 1597, “That such pastors and ministers as his Majesty should promote to the place, dignity, and title of a bishop, or other prelate, at any time, should have a voice in parliament, as freely as any ecclesiastical prelate had in times past.” In the year 1600, the king informed the Assembly, that “there was a necessity of restoring the ancient government of the Church;” and, consequently, under the sanction of parliament, “persons were nominated to the bishoprics that were void,” before the end of the year.—_Skinner’s Church History_, vol. ii. pp. 234–236.

And so we find that what, reasoning _a priori_, we should consider so improbable as to be almost incredible, was in point of fact impossible, “The Church of Scotland under a Presbyterian form, as it now is,” could not be intended by the canon, for such a Church did not exist as a recognised body in the state. On the contrary, as early as 1598, an act of the Scottish parliament had secured to the bishops and other ecclesiastical prelates to be appointed by the king their seats in parliament. And before the year 1600, bishops were nominated to the sees of Aberdeen, Argyle, Dunkeld, Brechin, and Dunblane. David Lindsay and George Gladstone were in that year designated to the sees of Ross and Caithness.

But it is said, these were not persons whom we regard as bishops; they were not consecrated, they were only titular bishops. Every child who has looked into ecclesiastical history knows this. But what do the advocates of Presbyterianism take by the fact? The fact is this, Presbyterianism was legally abolished: Episcopacy was legally established: the bishops were nominated: but the bishops designate were not yet consecrated. Can it be doubted to what the canon referred? It is absolutely certain that it could _not_ refer to Presbyterianism; to what, then, _did_ it refer? Ecclesiastical affairs in Scotland were in a transitional state. It was known that the king intended to introduce the _substance_ of Episcopacy as well as the form. His principles were known. His power undoubted. The act of parliament enabled him to designate bishops. He _had_ designated them; but he himself said, “I cannot make you bishops,” that was to be done by consecration. The Church of Scotland was in the very act of being formed and organized. The Convocation, acting prospectively, spoke of it as it was about to be, and as it soon after became. The bishops designate were consecrated in 1610.

But we must not stop here. So far from true is it, that “the Church of Scotland under a Presbyterian form, as it now is,” was the Church contemplated by the 55th canon, that by other canons passed in this very Convocation of 1603, the Presbyterians were actually excommunicated.

The Presbyterians had anathematized the Church of England. We have only to refer to the “Book of the universal Kirk,” to see that at the fourth session of the General Assemblie, held at Dundee, in 1580, the following was enacted: “Forasmeickle as the office of a bischop, as it is now usit, and commonly taken within this realme, hes no sure warrand, auctoritie, nor good ground out of the Book and Scriptures of God, but is brocht in by the folie and corruptions of [men’s] invention, to the great overthrow of the Kirk of God; the haill assembly of the Kirk, in ane voice, after liberty given to all men to reason in the matter, none opposing themselves in defending the said pretendit office, finds and declares the samein pretendit office, useit and termeit, as above said, unlawfull in the selfe, as have had neither foundation ground, nor warrant within the Word of God.”—Pt. ii. 453.

This was subsequently ratified in the second session of the General Assembly, holden at Edinburgh, in 1592. Again, in the Conference connected with the General Assembly, holden at Montrose, in 1600, it was maintained by the Kirk, that “The Anglican Episcopal dignities, offices, places, titles, and all Ecclesiastical Prelacies, are _flat repugnant to the Word of God;_” and that “all corruptions of these bishopricks are damned and rejected.”

So spake the sect which the advocates of Presbyterianism maintain that we place in our Bidding Prayer on the same footing as the Churches of England and Ireland. How the members of this “Holy Kirk” spoke of the Prayer Book, we learn from the president of the Convocation himself. Their language was, “That it (the Prayer Book) is full of corruption, confusion, and profanation; that it _contains at least five hundred errors;_ that the orders therein described are _carnal, beggarly, dung, dross, lousy, and anti-Christian_. They say we eat not the Lord’s supper, but play a pageant of our own, to make the poor silly souls believe they have an English _Mass_; and so put no difference betwixt truth and falsehood, betwixt Christ and anti-Christ, betwixt God and the devil!”—See _Bancroft’s Sermon_, p. 284.

Such were the feelings and principles and charity and forbearance of the Presbyterians of that age; and how does the Church of England deal with such persons? Let the Church of England speak for herself through the canons of 1603:—

Canon 4. “Whosoever shall affirm, That the form of God’s worship in the Church of England, established by law, and contained in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments, is a corrupt, superstitious, or unlawful worship of God, or containeth anything in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures; let him be excommunicated _ipso facto_, and not restored, but by the bishop of the place, or archbishop, after his repentance, and public revocation of such his wicked errors.”

Canon 6. “Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, That the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England by law established are wicked, anti-Christian, or superstitious, or such as, being commanded by lawful authority, men, who are zealously and godly affected, may not with any good conscience approve them, use them, or, as occasion requireth, subscribe unto them; let him be excommunicated _ipso facto_, and not restored until he repent, and publicly revoke such his wicked errors.”

Canon 7. “Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, That the government of the Church of England, under his Majesty, by archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, and the rest that bear office in the same, is anti-Christian, or _repugnant to the word of_ GOD; let him be excommunicated _ipso facto_, and so continue until he repent, and publicly revoke such his wicked errors.”

Canon 8. “Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, or teach, That the form and manner of making and consecrating bishops, priests, or deacons, containeth anything that is repugnant to the word of GOD; or that they who are made bishops, priests, or deacons in that form, are not lawfully made, nor ought to be accounted, either by themselves or by others, to be truly either bishops, priests, or deacons, until they have some other calling to those divine offices; let him be excommunicated _ipso facto_, not to be restored until he publicly revoke such his wicked errors.”

Canon 9. “Whosoever shall hereafter separate themselves from the communion of saints, as it is approved by the apostles’ rules in the Church of England, and combine themselves together in a new brotherhood, accounting the Christians who are conformable to the doctrine, government, rites, and ceremonies of the Church of England, to be profane, and unmeet for them to join with in Christian profession; let them be excommunicated _ipso facto_, and not restored, but by the archbishop, after their repentance, and public revocation of such their wicked errors.”

We can conceive nothing in the records of absurdity, more absurd than the idea that the very parties by whom Presbyterians were excommunicated, should be the parties to speak of their denomination as a sister Church. At the time when the 55th canon was enacted, the two kingdoms had been united, and the king of the two kingdoms had expressed his determination to unite the two Churches; he had already taken measures to effect his purpose, and in a few years he succeeded in his object. The Convocation, acting under his commands, excommunicated the Presbyterians, whom he hated, and held out the hand of fellowship to the Church, which he was rearing amidst the ecclesiastical anarchy of Scotland. “True,” says a learned writer: “the bishops were not consecrated till a few years later, but when the law of the land had recognised their estate, and the men were known and appointed, it appears to me a verbal shuffle, and something more, (unintentional, of course,) to say, ‘the Church of Scotland was then, as now, Presbyterian.’”

The reader who desires to see the subject more fully treated, is referred to Chancellor Harington’s most able Letter on the 55th Canon. To Chancellor Harington the writer of this article is indebted for the extract from the Premonition. It is quoted, but imperfectly, in Macrie’s Life of Andrew Melville.

BIER. A carriage on which the dead are carried to the grave. It is to be provided by the parish.

BIRTH-DAYS. In the ancient Church, this term, in its application to martyrs, and the festivals in honour of them, expressed the day on which they suffered death, or were born into the glory and happiness of the kingdom above. In this sense it stood distinct from the time of their natural birth into the world, which was considered as an event so inferior, that its ordinary designation was merged in that of a translation to the joys of a better world. “When ye hear of a birthday of saints, brethren,” says Peter Chrysologus, bishop of Ravenna in the 5th century, “do not think that that is spoken of in which they are born on earth, of the flesh, but that in which they are born from earth into heaven, from labour to rest, from temptations to repose, from torments to delights, not fluctuating, but strong, and stable, and eternal: from the derision of the world to a crown and glory. Such are the birthdays of the martyrs that we celebrate.”

BISHOP. (See _Orders_, _Apostolical Succession_, _Succession_, _Archbishop_.) This is the title now given to those who are of the highest order in the Christian ministry. The English word comes from the Saxon _bischop_, which is a derivative from the Greek Ἐπισκοπος, an overseer or inspector.

The doctrine of Scripture, as it relates to the office of bishop, may be briefly stated thus:—As the LORD JESUS CHRIST was sent by the FATHER, so were the apostles sent by him. “As my FATHER hath sent me,” he says soon after his resurrection, “even so send I you.” Now, _how_ had the FATHER sent him? He had sent him to act as his supreme minister on earth; as such to appoint under him subordinate ministers, and, to do what he then did when his work on earth was done, to hand on his commission to others. The apostles, in like manner, were sent by CHRIST to act as his chief ministers in the Church, to appoint subordinate ministers under them, and then, as he had done, to hand on their commission to others. And on this commission, after our LORD had ascended up on high, the apostles proceeded to act. They formed their converts into Churches: these Churches consisted of baptized believers, to officiate among whom subordinate ministers, priests, and deacons were ordained; while the apostle who formed any particular Church exercised over it episcopal superintendence, either holding an occasional visitation, by sending for the clergy to meet him, (as St. Paul summoned to Miletus the clergy of Ephesus,) or else transmitting to them those pastoral addresses, which, under the name of Epistles, form so important a portion of Holy Scripture. At length, however, it became necessary for the apostles to proceed yet further, and to do as their Lord had empowered them to do, to hand on their commission to others, that at their own death the governors of the Church might not be extinct. Of this we have an instance in Titus, who was placed in Crete by St. Paul, to act as chief pastor or bishop; and another in Timothy, who was in like manner set over the Church of Ephesus. And when Timothy was thus appointed to the office of chief pastor, he was associated with St. Paul, who, in writing to the Philippians, commences his salutation thus: “Paul and Timotheus to the servants of JESUS CHRIST who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” Now we have here the three orders of the ministry clearly alluded to. The title of bishop is, doubtless, given to the second order: but it is not for words, but for things, that we are to contend. Titles may be changed, while offices remain; so senators exist, though they are not now of necessity old men; and most absurd would it be to contend that, when we speak of the emperor Constantine, we can mean that Constantine held no other office than that held under the Roman republic, because we find Cicero also saluted as emperor. So stood the matter in the first age of the gospel, when the chief pastors of the Church were generally designated apostles or angels, i. e. messengers sent by GOD himself. In the next century, the office remaining, the designation of those who held it was changed, the title of Apostle was confined to the Twelve, including St. Paul; and the chief pastors who succeeded them were thenceforth called bishops, the subordinate ministers being styled priests and deacons. For when the name of bishop was given to those who had that oversight of presbyters, which presbyters had of their flocks, it would have been manifestly inconvenient, and calculated to engender confusion, to continue the episcopal name to the second order. And thus we see, as CHRIST was sent by the FATHER, so he sent the apostles; as the apostles were sent by CHRIST, so did they send the first race of bishops; as the first race of bishops was sent by the apostles, so they sent the second race of bishops, the second the third, and so down to our present bishops, who thus trace their spiritual descent from St. Peter and St. Paul, and prove their Divine authority to govern the Churches over which they are canonically appointed to preside.

The three orders of the ministry in the New Testament stand thus: 1st order, Apostle. 2nd order, Bishop, Presbyter, or Elder. 3rd order, Deacon. Afterwards, the office remaining the same, there was a change in the title, and the ministers of CHRIST were designated thus: 1st order, Bishop, formerly Apostle. 2nd order, Presbyter or Elder. 3rd order, Deacon.

The offices of an apostle and a bishop are thus distinguished by the learned Barrow: “The apostleship is an extraordinary office, charged with instruction and government of the whole world; but episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge affixed to one place, and requiring a special attendance there.”—See _Consecration of Bishops_.

The judgment of the Church of England with respect to the primitive existence of the episcopal order is this: “It is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that _from the apostles’ time_ there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s Church,—Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.”—_Preface to the Ordination Service._

BISHOPS’ BIBLE. (See _Bible_.)

BISHOPS, ELECTION OF. When cities were at first converted to Christianity, the bishops were elected by the clergy and people: for it was then thought convenient that the laity, as well as the clergy, should concur in the election, that he who was to have the inspection of them all might come in by general consent.

But as the number of Christians increased, this was found to be inconvenient; for tumults were raised, and sometimes murders committed, at such popular elections. To prevent such disorders, the emperors, being then Christians, reserved the election of bishops to themselves; but the bishop of Rome, when he had obtained supremacy in the Western Church, was unwilling that the bishops should have any dependence upon princes; and therefore brought it about that the canons in cathedral churches should have the election of their bishops, which elections were usually confirmed at Rome.

But princes had still some power in those elections; and in England we read, that, in the Saxon times, all ecclesiastical dignities were conferred by the king in parliament.

From these circumstances arose the long controversy about the right of investiture, a point conceded, so far as our Church is concerned, by Henry I., who only reserved the ceremony of homage to himself from the bishops in respect of temporalities. King John afterwards granted his charter, by common consent of the barons, that the bishops should be eligible by the chapter, though the right of the Crown in former times was acknowledged. This was afterwards confirmed by several acts of parliament. This election by the chapter was to be a free election, but founded upon the king’s _congé d’ élire_: it was afterwards to have the royal assent; and the newly-elected bishop was not to have his temporalities assigned until he had sworn allegiance to the king; but it was agreed, that confirmation and consecration should be in the power of the pope, so that foreign potentate gained in effect the disposal of all the bishoprics in England.

But the pope was not content with this power of confirmation and consecration; he would oftentimes collate to the bishoprics himself: hence, by the statute of the 26 Edward III. sec. 6, it was enacted as follows, viz. The free elections of archbishops, bishops, and all other dignities and benefices elective in England, shall hold from henceforth in the manner as they were granted by the king’s progenitors, and the ancestors of other lords, founders of the said dignities and other benefices. And in case that reservation, collation, or provision be made by the court of Rome, of any archbishopric, bishopric, dignity, or other benefice, in disturbance of the free elections aforesaid, the king shall have for that time the collations to the archbishoprics and other dignities elective which be of his advowry, such as his progenitors had before that free election was granted; since that the election was first granted by the king’s progenitors upon a certain form and condition, as to demand licence of the king to choose, and after the election to have his royal assent, and not in other manner; which conditions not kept, the thing ought by reason to resort to its first nature.

Afterwards, by the 25 Henry VIII. c. 20, all Papal jurisdiction whatsoever in this matter was entirely taken away: by which it is enacted—That no person shall be presented and nominated to the bishop of Rome, otherwise called the pope, or to the see of Rome, for the office of an archbishop or bishop; but the same shall utterly cease, and be no longer used within this realm.

And the manner and order as well of the election of archbishops and bishops, as of the confirmation of the election and consecration, is clearly enacted and expressed by that statute. By the statute of the 1 Edward VI. c. 2, all bishoprics were made donative, and it has been supposed by some, that the principal intent of this act was to make deans and chapters less necessary, and thereby to prepare the way for a dissolution of them.

But this statute was afterwards repealed, and the matter was brought back again, and still rests upon the statute of the 25th Henry VIII. c. 20.

When a bishop dies, or is translated, the dean and chapter certify the queen thereof in Chancery, and pray leave of the queen to make election. Thereupon the sovereign grants a licence to them under the great seal, to elect the person, whom by her letters missive she has appointed; and they are to choose no other. Within twenty-six days after the receipt of this licence they are to proceed to election, which is done after this manner: the dean and chapter having made their election, must certify it under their common seal to the queen, and to the archbishop of the province, and to the bishop elected; then the queen gives her royal assent under the great seal, directed to the archbishop, commanding him to confirm and consecrate the bishop thus elected. The archbishop subscribes it thus, viz. _Fiat confirmatio_, and grants a commission to his vicar-general to perform all acts requisite to that purpose. Upon this the vicar-general issues a citation to summon all persons who oppose this election, to appear, &c., which citation (in the province of Canterbury) is affixed by an officer of the Arches, on the door of Bow church, and he makes three proclamations there for the opposers, &c. to appear. After this, the same officer certifies what he has done to the vicar-general; and no person appearing, &c., at the time and place appointed, &c., the proctor for the dean and chapter exhibits the royal assent, and the commission of the archbishop directed to his vicar-general, which are both read, and then accepted by him. Afterwards the proctor exhibits his proxy from the dean and chapter, and presents the newly-elected bishop to the vicar-general, returns the citation, and desires that three proclamations may be made for the opposers to appear; which being done, and none appearing, he desires that they may proceed to confirmation, _in pœnam contumaciæ_; and this is subscribed by the vicar-general in a schedule, and decreed by him accordingly. Then the proctor exhibits a summary petition, setting forth the whole process of election; in which it is desired that a certain time may be assigned to him to prove it, and this is likewise desired by the vicar-general. Then he exhibits the assent of the queen and archbishop once more, and that certificate which he returned to the vicar-general, and of the affixing the citation on the door of Bow church, and desires a time may be appointed for the final sentence, which is also decreed. Then three proclamations are again made for the opposers to appear, but none coming they are pronounced _contumaces_; and it is then decreed to proceed to sentence, and this is in another schedule read and subscribed by the vicar-general. On one memorable occasion, see Reg. _v._ Abp. of Canterbury, Q. B., Jan. 25, 1848, the court of Q. B. pronounced this to be a mere useless form and ceremony. It was a time when political and party feeling ran higher, perhaps, than at any time since the reign of James II., and it is hoped that, should a similar case occur, justice would be done to the Church. Then the bishop elect takes the oath of supremacy, canonical obedience, and that against simony, and then the dean of the Arches reads and subscribes the sentence. The dean and chapter are to certify this election in twenty days after the delivery of the letters missive, or they incur a premunire. And if they refuse to elect, then the queen may nominate a person by her letters patent. So that, to the making a bishop, these things are requisite, viz. election, confirmation, consecration, and investiture. Upon election, the person is only a bishop _Nomine_, and not _In re_, for he has no power of jurisdiction before consecration.

In the time of the Saxons, as indeed was generally the case throughout Europe, all bishops and abbots sat in state councils, by reason of their office, as they were spiritual persons, and not upon account of any tenures; but after the Conquest the abbots sat there by virtue of their tenures, and the bishops in a double capacity, as bishops and likewise as barons by tenure. When, in the 11th year of Henry II., Archbishop Becket was condemned in parliament, there was a dispute who should pronounce the sentence, whether a bishop, or a temporal lord: those who desired that a bishop should do it, alleged that they were ecclesiastical persons, and that it was one of their own order who was condemned; but the bishops replied, that this was not a spiritual but a secular judgment; and that they did not sit there merely as bishops, but as barons; and told the House of Peers, _Nos barones, vos barones pares hic sumus_. In the very year before, in the tenth of Henry II., it was declared by the Constitutions of Clarendon, that bishops, and all other persons who hold of the king _in capite_, have their possessions of him _sicut baroniam, et sicut cæteri barones, debent interesse judiciis curiæ regis, &c._; and that they ought to sit there likewise as bishops; that is, not as mere spiritual persons, vested with a power only to ordain and confirm, &c., but as they are the governors of the Church. It is for this reason that, on the vacancy of a bishopric, the guardian of the spiritualities is summoned to the parliament in the room of the bishop; and the new bishops of Bristol, Chester, Gloucester, Oxford, and Peterborough, which were made by Henry VIII., and the bishops of Ripon and Manchester, have no baronies, and yet they sit in parliament as bishops of those sees by the king’s writ. This view of the case is confirmed by the analogy of Scotland, where the bishops sat in parliament as representing the spirituality, one of the estates of the realm. The bishops of Ireland were, from the time of the submission of that country to Henry II., elected exactly as in England, under the king’s licence, and by virtue of a congé d’élire directed to the chapters. The statute of provisors was in force in Ireland as well as England; and although, from the unsettled state of the country, irregular elections occasionally took place in distant provinces, it can be clearly shown that this was in consequence of the weakness of the Crown, and in contradiction to the law. (See _Ware’s Irish Bishops, passim_, and _Cotton’s Facti Ecclesiæ Hibern_.) The right of election was taken away from the chapters, as in England, in the reign of Henry VIII., and never restored. The Irish bishops are, in consequence, still nominated, as their English brethren were till Queen Elizabeth’s reign, by letters patent.

BLASPHEMY. (From the Greek word, βλασφημέω, _quasi_ βλάπτω τὴν φήμην.) An injury to the reputation of any, but now used almost exclusively to designate that which derogates from the honour of GOD, whether by detracting from his person or attributes, or by attributing to the creature what is due to GOD alone.

Blasphemy is a crime both in the civil and canon law, and is punishable both by the statute and common law of England.

The sin of blasphemy incurred the public censure of the primitive Christian Church. They distinguished blasphemy into three sorts. 1. The blasphemy of apostates, whom the heathen persecutors obliged, not only to deny, but to curse CHRIST. 2. The blasphemy of heretics, and other profane Christians. 3. The blasphemy against the HOLY GHOST. The first sort we find mentioned in Pliny, who, giving Trajan an account of some Christians, whom the persecutions of his times had made to apostatize, tells him, they all worshipped his images, and the images of the gods, and cursed JESUS CHRIST. And that this was the common way of renouncing their religion, appears from the demand of the proconsul to Polycarp, and Polycarp’s answer. He bid him revile CHRIST: to which Polycarp replied; “These eighty-six years I have served him, and he never did me any harm; how then can I blaspheme my King and my SAVIOUR?”—These blasphemers, as having added blasphemy to apostasy, were reckoned among the apostates, and punished as such, to the highest degree of ecclesiastical censure.—_Bingham, Origin. Eccles._ b. xvi. ch. 7, § 1. _Plin._ Ep. 97, lib. x. _Euseb. Hist. Eccles._ lib. iv. cap. 15.

The second sort of blasphemers were such as made profession of the Christian religion, but yet, either by impious doctrines or profane discourses, derogated from the majesty and honour of GOD and his holy religion. This sense of blasphemy included every kind of heresy; whence the same punishment the Church had appointed for heretics, was the lot of this kind of blasphemers. And that in this notion of blasphemy they included all impious and profane language, appears from Synesius’s treatment of Andronicus, governor of Ptolemais. He was contented to admonish him for his other crimes; but, when he added blasphemy to them, saying, no one should escape his hands, though he laid hold of the very foot of CHRIST, Synesius thought it high time to proceed to anathemas and excommunication.—_Bingham_, ibid. § 2.

The third sort of blasphemy was that against the HOLY GHOST: concerning which the opinions of the ancients varied. Some applied it to the sin of lapsing into idolatry and apostasy, and denying CHRIST in time of persecution. Others made it to consist in denying CHRIST to be GOD; in which sense Hilary charges the Arians with sinning against the HOLY GHOST. Origen thought that whoever, after having received the gifts of the HOLY GHOSt by baptism, afterwards ran into sin, was guilty of the unpardonable sin against the HOLY GHOST. Athanasius refutes this notion, and delivers his own opinion in the following manner. “The Pharisees, in our SAVIOUR’S time, and the Arians, in our own, running into the same madness, denied the real WORD to be incarnate, and ascribed the works of the Godhead to the devil and his angels.—They put the devil in the place of GOD—which was the same thing as if they had said, that the world was made by Beelzebub, that the sun rose at his command, and the stars moved by his direction.—For this reason CHRIST declared their sin unpardonable, and their punishment inevitable and eternal.” St. Ambrose likewise defines this sin to be a denying the Divinity of CHRIST. There are others, who make it to consist in denying the Divinity of the HOLY GHOST. Epiphanius calls these blasphemers πνευματόμαχοι, “fighters against the HOLY GHOST.” Others, again, place this sin in a perverse and malicious ascribing the operations of the HOLY SPIRIT to the power of the devil; and that against express knowledge and conviction of conscience.