Chapter XVII: Preface: To the Seventh Edition (16)

At the time of the Reformation, scarcely any point was more canvassed than the right of the clergy to marry. The celibacy of the clergy was justly considered as a principal cause of irregular and dissolute living; and the wisest of the Reformers were exceedingly anxious to abolish a practice, which had been injurious to the interests of religion, by its tendency to corrupt the morals of those who ought to be examples of virtue to the rest of mankind. The marriage of priests was so far from being forbidden by the Mosaic institution, that the priesthood was confined to the descendants of one family, and consequently there was not only a permission, but an obligation upon the Jewish priests to marry. Hence we conclude that there is no natural inconsistency, or even unsuitableness, between the married state and the duties of the ministers of religion. Not a single text in the New Testament can be interpreted into a prohibition against the marriage of the clergy under the gospel dispensation; but, on the contrary, there are many passages from which we may infer that they are allowed the same liberty upon this subject as other men enjoy. One of the twelve apostles, namely, St. Peter, was certainly a married man (Matt. viii. 14); and it is supposed that several of the others were also married. Philip, one of the seven deacons, was also a married man (Acts xxi. 9); and if our LORD did not require celibacy in the first preachers of the gospel, it cannot be thought indispensable in their successors. St. Paul says, “Let every man have his own wife” (1 Cor. vii. 2); and that marriage is honourable in all, (Heb. xiii. 4,) without excepting those who are employed in the public offices of religion. He expressly says, that “a bishop must be the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. iii. 2); and he gives the same direction concerning elders, priests, and deacons. When Aquila travelled about to preach the gospel, he was not only married, but his wife Priscilla accompanied him (Acts xviii. 2); and St. Paul insists that he might have claimed the privilege “of carrying about a sister or wife, (1 Cor. ix. 5,) as other apostles did.” The “forbidding to marry” (1 Tim. iv. 3) is mentioned as a character of the apostasy of the latter times. That the ministers of the gospel were allowed to marry for several centuries after the days of the apostles appears certain. Polycarp mentions Valens, presbyter of Philippi, who was a married man, and there are now extant two letters of Tertullian, a presbyter of the second century, addressed to his wife. Novatus was a married presbyter of Carthage, as we learn from Cyprian, who was, in the opinion of some historians, himself a married man; and so was Cæcilius, the presbyter who converted him, and Numidius, another presbyter of Carthage. That they were allowed to cohabit with their wives after ordination appears from the charge which Cyprian brought against Novatus, that he had struck and abused his wife, and by that means caused her to miscarry. In the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, a motion was made, that a law might pass to oblige the clergy to abstain from all conjugal society: but it was strenuously opposed by Paphnutius, a famous Egyptian bishop, who, although himself unmarried, pleaded that marriage was honourable, and that so heavy a burden as abstaining from it ought not to be laid upon the clergy. Upon which the motion was laid aside, and every man left to his liberty, as before. All that Valesius, after Bellarmine, has to say against this is, that he suspects the truth of the thing, and begs leave to dissent from the historian; which is but a poor evasion in the judgment of Du Pin himself, who, though a Romanist, makes no question but that the Council of Nice decreed in favour of the married clergy. The same thing is evident from other councils of the same age; as the councils of Gangra, Ancyra, Neocæsarea, Eliberis, and Trullo. We have also a letter from Hilary of Poictiers, written to his daughter when he was in exile; and from what can be collected concerning her age, it seems probable that she was born when he was a bishop. At the same time it must be owned, that many things are said in praise of a single life in the writings of the ancient fathers; and the law of celibacy had been proposed, before or about the beginning of the fourth century, by some individuals. The arguments are forcible which are used, but there is one general answer to them all: the experiment has been made, and it has failed. In a country where there are no nunneries, the wives of the clergy are most useful to the Church. Siricius, who, according to Dufresnoy, died in the year 399, [397, Barenius,] was the first pope who forbade the marriage of the clergy; but it is probable that this prohibition was little regarded, as the celibacy of the clergy seems not to have been completely established till the papacy of Gregory VII., at the end of the eleventh century, and even at that time it was loudly complained of by many writers. The history of the following centuries abundantly proves the bad effects of this abuse of Church power. The old English and Welsh records show that the clergy were married as late as the eleventh century. See the _Liber Landavensis_, _passim_.

CELLITES. A certain religious order of Popish Christians, which has houses in Antwerp, Louvain, Mechlin, Cologne, and in other towns in Germany and the Netherlands, whose founder was one Mexius, a Roman, mentioned in the history of Italy, where they are also called Mexians.

CEMETERY means originally a place to sleep in, and hence by Christians, who regard death as a kind of sleep, it is applied to designate a place of burial. Cemetery is derived from κοιμάω, to sleep, because the primitive Christians spoke of death as a sleep, from which men are to awake at the general resurrection. The first Christian sepulchres were crypts or catacombs. The custom of burying in churches was not practised for the first 300 years of the Christian era; and severe laws were passed against burying even in cities. The first step towards the practice of burying in churches, was the transferring of the relics of martyrs thither: next, sovereigns and princes were allowed burial in the porch: in the sixth century churchyards came into use. By degrees the practice prevailed from the ninth to the thirteenth century, encouraged first by special grants from popes, and by connivance, though contrary to the express laws of the Church.—See _Bingham_. (See 9 & 10 Vict. c. 68, entitled “An Act for better enabling the Burial Service to be performed in one chapel, where contiguous burial-ground shall have been provided for two or more parishes or places.”)

The following is a list of the several acts of parliament recently passed relating to church building, and to cemeteries and churchyards:—43 Geo. III. c. 108; 51 Geo. III. c. 115; 56 Geo. III. c. 141; 58 Geo. III. c. 45; 59 Geo. III. c. 134; 3 Geo. IV. c. 72; 5 Geo. IV. c. 103; 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 72; 9 Geo. IV. c. 42; 1 & 2 Wm. IV. c. 38; 2 & 3 Wm. IV. c. 61; 1 Vict. c. 75; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 107; 2 & 3 Vict. c. 49; 3 & 4 Vict. c. 60; 7 & 8 Vict. c. 56; 8 & 9 Vict. c. 70; 9 & 10 Vict. c. 88; 10 & 11 Vict. c. 65; 11 & 12 Vict. c. 37; 11 & 12 Vict. c. 71.

In the neighbourhood of London are several cemeteries endowed with privileges under acts of parliament specially applicable to them. The principal is that of Kensall Green, established 2 & 3 Wm. IV., and consecrated by the bishop of London in 1832; the South London, at Norwood, was established 6 & 7 Wm. IV., 1836. There are four others in the neighbourhood of London. There are large cemeteries also at Manchester, Liverpool, Reading, and several other towns.

In 1850 was passed the act 13 & 14 Vict. c. 52, which gave to the General Board of Health very extensive powers for abolishing existing places of sepulture, whether in the neighbourhood of churches or not, and for establishing public cemeteries. This very elaborate act, containing seventy-seven sections and four schedules, has hitherto been found impracticable, except in so far as it relates to the appointment of a new commissioner of the Board of Health to work the act. In the year 1852 was passed the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 85, making provision for interments in the metropolis. In 1853, by 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134, most of the provisions of the act of 1852 were extended to all England.

CENOBITES. A name formerly given to such as entered into a monastic life, and lived in communities, to distinguish them from such as passed their lives in wildernesses and alone, as hermits and anchorites. The word is derived from κοινόβιον, _vitæ communis societas_.

CENOTAPH. (κενοτάφιον, from κενὸς and τάφος, _an empty tomb_.) A memorial of a deceased person, not erected over his body. So far as churches may be considered memorials of the saints whose name they bear, they are analogous either to monuments, when the bodies of the saints there repose, (as, for instance, St. Alban’s, and the ancient church at Peransabulo,) or to cenotaphs, when, as is far more generally the case, the saint is buried far off. A great part of the monuments which disfigure Westminster Abbey and St. Paul’s are cenotaphs.

CENSURES ECCLESIASTICAL. The penalties by which, for some remarkable misbehaviour, Christians are deprived of the communion of the Church, or clergymen are prohibited to execute the sacerdotal office. These censures are, excommunication, suspension, and interdict; or else, irregularity, which hinders a man from being admitted into holy orders.

The canonists define an ecclesiastical censure to be a spiritual punishment, inflicted by some ecclesiastical judge, whereby he deprives a person baptized of the use of some spiritual things, which conduce, not only to his present welfare in the Church, but likewise to his future and eternal salvation. It differs from civil punishments, which consist only in things temporal; as confiscation of goods, pecuniary mulcts or fines, and the like; but the Church, by its censures, does not deprive a man of all spirituals, but only of some in particular. This definition speaks of such things as conduce to eternal salvation, in order to manifest the end of this censure; for the Church, by censures, does not intend the destroying of men’s souls, but only the _saving_ them; by enjoining repentance for past errors, a return from contumacy, and an abstaining from future sins.

CENTURIES, MAGDEBURG. A celebrated and extraordinary ecclesiastical history, projected by Flacius Illyricus, and prosecuted by him, in conjunction with several others, many of them divines of Magdeburg. Their names were, Nicolaus Gallus, Johannes Wigandus, and Matthias Judex, all ministers of Magdeburg, assisted by Caspar Nidpruckius, an Imperial Counsellor, Johannes Baptista Heincelius, an Augustinian, Basil Faber, and others. The centuriators thus describe the process employed in the composition of their work. Five directors were appointed to manage the whole design; and ten paid agents supplied the necessary labour. Seven of these were well-informed students, who were employed in making collections from the various pieces set before them. Two others, more advanced in years, and of greater learning and judgment, arranged the matter thus collected, submitted it to the directors, and, if it were approved, employed it in the composition of the work. As fast as the various chapters were composed, they were laid before certain inspectors, selected from the directors, who carefully examined what had been done, and made the necessary alterations; and, finally, a regular amanuensis made a fair copy of the whole.

At length, in the year 1560, (though probably printed in 1559,) appeared the first volume of their laborious undertaking. It was printed at Basle. But the city in which the first part of it was composed has given it a distinctive title; and the first great Protestant work on Church history has been always commonly known as the _Magdeburg Centuries_.

It was in every point of view an extraordinary production. Though the first modern attempt to illustrate the history of the Church, it was written upon a scale which has scarcely been exceeded. It brought to light a large quantity of unpublished materials; and cast the whole subject into a fixed and regular form. One of its most remarkable features is the elaborate classification. This was strictly original, and, with all its inconveniences, undoubtedly tended to introduce scientific arrangement and minute accuracy into the study of Church history. Each century is treated separately, in sixteen heads or chapters. The first of these gives a general view of the history of the century; then follow, 2. The extent and propagation of the Church. 3. Persecution and tranquillity of the Church. 4. Doctrine. 5. Heresies. 6. Rites and Ceremonies. 7. Government. 8. Schisms. 9. Councils. 10. Lives of Bishops and Doctors. 11. Heretics. 12. Martyrs. 13. Miracles. 14. Condition of the Jews. 15. Other religions not Christian. 16. Political condition of the world.

Mr. Dowling (from whose excellent work on the study of Ecclesiastical History this article is taken) adds, that this peculiarity of form rendered the work of the centuriators rather a collection of separate treatises, than a compact and connected history; while, their object being to support a certain form of polemical theology, their relations are often twisted to suit their particular views.

CERDONIANS. Heretics of the second century, followers of Cerdon. The heresy consisted chiefly in laying down the existence of two contrary principles; in rejecting the law, and the prophets as ministers of a bad GOD; in ascribing, not a true body, but only the phantasm of a body, to our blessed LORD, and in denying the resurrection.—_Tertullian. Epiphanius._

CEREMONY. This word is of Latin origin, though some of the best critics in antiquity are divided in their opinions, in assigning from what original it is derived. Joseph Scaliger proves by analogy, that as _sanctimonia_ comes from _sanctus_, so does _ceremonia_ from the old Latin word _cerus_, which signifies sacred or holy. The Christian writers have adapted the word to signify external rites and customs in the worship of GOD; which, though they are not of the essence of religion, yet contribute much to good order and uniformity in the church. If there were no ornaments in the church, and no prescribed order of administration, the common people would hardly be persuaded to show more reverence in the sacred assemblies than in other ordinary places, where they meet only for business or diversion. Upon this account St. Augustine says, “No religion, either true or false, can subsist without some ceremonies.” Notwithstanding this, some persons have laid it down, as a fundamental principle of religion, that no ceremony, or human constitution, is justifiable, but what is expressly warranted in the word of GOD. This dogma Mr. Cartwright has reduced into a syllogistical demonstration. “Wheresoever faith is wanting, there is sin. In every action not commanded, faith is wanting; ergo, in every action not commanded, there is sin.” But the falsity of this syllogism is shown at large by Hooker, in his second book of Ecclesiastical Polity, by arguments drawn from the indifference of many human actions—from the natural liberty GOD has afforded us—from the examples of holy men in Scripture, who have differently used this liberty—and from the power which the Church by Divine authority is vested with. That apostolical injunction, “Let all things be done with decency, and in order,” (1 Cor. xiv. 40,) is a much better demonstration, that the Church has a power to enjoin proper ceremonies, for the good order and comeliness of ecclesiastical conventions, than Mr. Cartwright’s syllogism is for the people’s contempt of them when enjoined.—_Nicholls._

We still keep, and esteem, not only those ceremonies which we are sure were delivered us from the apostles, but some others too besides, which we thought might be suffered without hurt to the Church of God; for that we had a desire that all things in the holy congregation might, as St. Paul commandeth, be done with comeliness, and in good order. But as for all those things which we saw were either very superstitious, or utterly unprofitable, or noisome, or mockeries, or contrary to the Holy Scriptures, or else unseemly for sober and discreet people, whereof there be infinite numbers now-a-days, where the Roman religion is used; these, I say, we have utterly refused without all manner of exception, because we would not have the right worshipping of God to be defiled any longer with such follies.—_Bp. Jewell._

Wise Christians sit down in the mean now under the gospel, avoiding a careless and parsimonious neglect on the one side, and a superstitious slovenliness on the other: the painted looks and lascivious gaudiness of the Church upon the hills, and the careless, neglected dress of some Churches in the valley.—_Bp. Hall._

Far be it from me to be a patron of idolatry or superstition in the least degree, yet I am afraid lest we, who have reformed the worship of GOD from that pollution, (and blessed be his name therefor!) by bending the crooked stick too much the other way, have run too far into the other extreme.—_Mede._

It may be objected, that my superior may enjoin me such a law, as my conscience tells me is scandalous to my brother, not convenient, not edifying, &c.; what shall I do in this condition? If I conform, I sin against my conscience (Rom. xiv. 23); if I do not, I sin against his authority. Answer, that text of Rom. xiv. 23, hath only reference to things not only indifferent in their own nature, but left free from any superior command interposing, and therefore the text is not _ad idem_; for though such laws may be of things indifferent, yet being commanded by just authority, the indifference by that command determineth, and they become necessary.—_L’Estrange._

The Reformation gave such a turn to weak heads, that had not weight enough to poise themselves between the extremes of Popery and fanaticism, that everything older than yesterday was looked upon to be Popish and anti-Christian. The meanest of the people aspired to the priesthood, and were readier to frame new laws for the Church, than obey the old.—_Sherlock._

It is a rule in prudence, not to remove an ill custom when it is well settled, unless it bring great prejudices, and then it is better to give one account why we have taken it away, than to be always making excuses why we do it not. Needless alteration doth diminish the venerable esteem of religion, and lessen the credit of ancient truths. Break ice in one place, and it will crack in more.—_Archbishop Bramhall._

Our SAVIOUR and his apostles did use indifferent things, which were not prescribed in Divine worship. Thus he joined in the synagogue worship, (John xviii. 20, &c.,) though (if the place itself were at all prescribed) the manner of that service was not so much as hinted at. Thus he used the cup of charity in the Passover, though it was not instituted. (Luke xxii. 17.) The feast of dedication was a human institution, yet he vouchsafed to be present at it. Nay, he complied with the Jews in the very posture of the Passover, which they changed to sitting, though GOD had prescribed standing. The apostles also observed the hours of prayer, which were of human institution. (Acts iii. 1.) Now if CHRIST and his apostles did thus under the Jewish law, which was so exact in prescribing outward ceremonies, certainly we may do the same under the gospel. I may add, that the primitive Christians not only complied with the Jews in such rites as were not forbidden, but also had some ritual observations taken up by themselves. Thus they washed the disciples’ feet in imitation of CHRIST, and used love-feasts, till they thought it convenient to lay them aside. From whence it appears, that prescription is not necessary to make a rite lawful; it is enough if it be not forbidden.—_Bennet._

Calvin, in his book of the True Way of Reformation, saith, he would not contend about ceremonies, not only those which are for decency, but those that are symbolical. Œcolampadius looked on the gesture at the sacrament as indifferent. Bucer thought the use of the sign of the cross after baptism neither indecent nor unprofitable. Crocius says, that the nature of ceremonies is to be taken from the doctrine which goes along with them; if the doctrine be good, the rites are so, or, at least, are tolerable; if it be false, then they are troublesome, and not to be borne; if it be impure, and lead to idolatry, then the ceremonies are tainted with the poison of it.—_Stillingfleet._

No abuse of any gesture, though it be in the most manifest idolatry, doth render that gesture simply evil, and for ever after unlawful to be used in the worship of GOD upon that account. For the abuse of a thing supposes the lawful use of it; and if anything otherwise lawful becomes sinful by an abuse of it, then it is plain that it is not in its own nature sinful, but by accident, and with respect to somewhat else. This is clear from Scripture; for if rites and ceremonies, after they have been abused by idolaters, become absolutely evil, and unlawful to be used at all, then the Jews sinned in offering sacrifices—erecting altars—burning incense to the GOD of heaven—bowing down themselves before him—wearing a linen garment in the time of Divine worship—and observing other things and rites which the heathens observe in the worship of false gods. Kneeling at prayers, and standing, and sitting, and lifting up the hands and eyes to heaven, and bowing of the body, together with prayer, and praise, and singing, have been all notoriously abused to idolatry, and are so to this day.—_Bennet._ Nay, this principle would render Christianity impracticable; because there is no circumstance, no instrument, no ministry in worship, but may have been in some way or other abused by Pagan or Romish idolatries.—_Bennet._

Bucer, in a letter to Johannes a Lasco, says, “If you will not admit such liberty and use of vesture to this pure and holy Church, because they have no commandment of the LORD, nor no example for it, I do not see how you can grant to any Church, that it may celebrate the LORD’S supper in the morning, &c.; for we have received for these things no commandment of the LORD, nor any example; yea, rather, the LORD gave a contrary example.”

The word ceremony occurs in the title page of the Prayer Book, in the prefatory section, (_of Ceremonies_,) in the 34th Article, and the vi., xiv., xviii., and xxx. Canons, &c. It is plainly a different thing from Common Prayer, (i. e. the ordinary public service as contrasted with the occasional services,) the administration of sacraments, or rites.

Dr. Nicholls says that the cross in baptism, and, it may be, the marriage ring, are perhaps the only ceremonies enjoined in the Book of 1662, which can in a strict and proper sense be called so. But, as is observed in a note to _Stephens’s Common Prayer Book with notes_, (vol. i. p. 139,) “Dr. Nicholls uses ceremony in a limited sense, which is by no means sanctioned by our best writers and divines. _Ceremonia_ in its classical sense was a general term for worship. Johnson’s definition, _outward rite, external form in religion_, is fully supported by his references, and especially Hooker, who, throughout his book, applies it to all that is external in worship. It seems that _rite_ and _ceremony_ are thus to be distinguished. A _rite_ is an act of religious worship, whether including ceremonies or not. A _ceremony_ is any particular of religious worship, (included in a rite,) which prescribes action, position, or even the _assumption_ of any particular vesture. The latter sense is plainly recognised by Hooker. (_Eccl. Pol._ book iv. sect. i.; book v. sect. 29.) The Preface to the Book of Common Prayer speaks first of _common prayer_, viz. the offices intended for the common and periodical use of _all_ at stated times; next, the administration of the sacraments; next, of _other_ rites and ceremonies; i. e. the occasional services, whether public or private, and all the methods of administration which these involve. Now among ceremonies, the prescribed procession in the Marriage and Burial Services, the standing at certain parts of the service, the bowing at the name of Jesus, as prescribed by the 18th canon, ought to be included.” It may be observed, that the 18th canon expressly calls the bowing just mentioned, a ceremony, as also in the 30th canon, the sign of the cross.—See _Hooker_, book iii. sect. 11, and book v. sect. 6.

CERINTHIANS. Ancient heretics, the followers of Cerinthus. This man, who was a Jew by birth, attempted to form a new and singular system of doctrine and discipline, by combining the doctrines of CHRIST with the opinions and errors of the Jews and Gnostics. He taught that the Creator of the world, whom he considered also as the Sovereign and Lawgiver of the Jews, was a Being endued with the greatest virtues, and derived his birth from the Supreme GOD; that this Being gradually degenerated from his former virtue; that, in consequence of this, the Supreme Being determined to destroy his empire, and, for that purpose, sent upon earth one of the ever happy and glorious æons whose name was CHRIST; that this CHRIST chose for his habitation the person of JESUS, into whom he entered in the form of a dove, whilst JESUS was receiving baptism of John in the waters of Jordan; that JESUS, after this union with CHRIST, opposed the God of the Jews, at whose instigation he was seized and crucified by the Hebrew chiefs; that when JESUS was taken captive, CHRIST ascended on high, and the man JESUS alone was subjected to the pain of an ignominious death.

CESSION. This is where the incumbent of any living is promoted to a bishopric; the church in that case is void by cession.

CHALDEANS. A modern sect of Christians in the East, in obedience to the see of Rome. Dr. Grant, in his _Nestorians_, quotes with approval the following passage from _Smith and Dwight’s Researches in Armenia_: which is also confirmed by Mr. Badger, in his _Nestorians and their Rituals_ (vol. i. p. 177–181). “In 1681, the Nestorian metropolitan of Diarbekir, having quarrelled with his patriarch, was first consecrated by the pope Patriarch of the Chaldeans. The sect was as new as the office, and created for it. Converts to Papacy from the Nestorians” [not from the Jacobites, as Mr. Badger corrects Dr. Grant] “were dignified with the name of the Chaldean Church. It means no more than Papal Syrians, as we have in other parts Papal Armenians and Papal Greeks.” (See _Nestorians._)

CHALDEE LANGUAGE. This was a dialect of the Hebrew, almost identical with the old Syriac, spoken formerly in Assyria, and the vernacular language of the Jews after the Babylonish captivity. The following parts of the Old Testament are written in Chaldee: Jer. x., xi.; Dan. ii. 4 to the end of chap. vii.; Ezra iv. 8 to vi. 19, and vii. 12–17.—_Jebb._

CHALDEE PARAPHRASE, in the Rabbinical style, is called Targum. There are three Chaldee paraphrases in Walton’s Polyglot, viz. 1. Of Onkelos. 2. Of Jonathan, son of Uzziel. 3. Of Jerusalem. The first of these is supposed to have been composed about the time that our blessed Lord was on earth. It comprises the Pentateuch. The second, comprising the Prophets and Historical Books, is supposed to have been composed about the same time as the former. The Jerusalem Targum is considered a compilation not earlier than the eighth century. It comprises the Pentateuch.—Another Targum, falsely ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, was probably written two centuries after Christ, if not later. There are other inferior Targums.—See _Horne on the Scriptures_.

CHALICE. (Lat. _calix_.) This word was formerly (as by Shakspeare) used to denote any sort of cup, but is now usually restricted to the cup in which the consecrated wine for the eucharist is administered. The primitive Christians, desirous of honouring the holy purpose for which it was used, had it made of the most costly substances their circumstances would allow—of glass, crystal, onyx, sardonyx, and gold.

By a canon of the Council of Rheims, in Charles the Great’s time, all churches were obliged to have chalices of some purer metal. The ancient chalices were of two kinds: the greater, which were in the nature of our flagons, containing a large quantity of wine, which was all consecrated in them together; and the lesser, which were otherwise called “ministeriales,” because the priest delivered the wine to be drunk out of them; for communion in one kind was not then invented by the Romish Church.—_Dr. Nicholls._ (See _Cup_.)

CHAMFER. The flat slope formed by cutting away an angle in timber, or masonry. The _chamfer_ is the first approach to a moulding, though it can hardly itself be called one. The _chamfer plane_, in speaking of mouldings, is used for the plane at an angle of 45°, or thereabouts, with the face of the wall, in which some of the mouldings often, and sometimes all of them, lie. The resolution of the chamfer into the square is called a _stop-chamfer_; it is often of considerable elegance.

CHANCEL. The upper part of the church, containing the holy table, and the stalls for the clergy. It is called the _Chori_ in cathedrals, college chapels, and large churches: and in many of the ancient English parish churches is inferior in height and width to the nave. (See _Choir_.)—_Jebb._ (_Cancellus._) So called _a Cancellis_, from the lattice-work partition betwixt the choir and the body of the church, so framed as to separate the one from the other, but not to intercept the sight. By the rubric before the Common Prayer, it is ordained that “the chancels shall remain as they have done in times past,” that is to say, distinguished from the body of the church in manner aforesaid; against which distinction Bucer (at the time of the Reformation) inveighed vehemently, as tending only to magnify the priesthood; but though the king and the parliament yielded so far as to allow the daily service to be read in the body of the church, if the ordinary thought fit, yet they would not suffer the chancel to be taken away or altered.

The chancel is the freehold of the rector, and part of his glebe, and therefore he ought to repair it: but if the rectory is impropriate, then the impropriator must do it: and this he is enjoined to do, not only by the common law, but by the canons of the Church; for in the gloss upon the Constitutions of Othobon it is said, that chancels must be repaired by those who are thereunto obliged; which words must refer to the common custom of England, by which rectors are obliged to repair the chancels. As to seats in the chancel, it has been made a question, whether the ordinary may place any person there? The objections against it are,—1. Because it is the freehold of the rector. 2. Because he is to repair it. But these are not sufficient reasons to divest the ordinary of that jurisdiction; for the freehold of the church is in the parson, and yet the bishop hath a power of placing persons there.

Unhappy disputes have arisen concerning the situation of the LORD’S table in the chancels. The first, in the beginning of the Reformation, was, whether those of the altar fashion, which had been used in the Popish times, and on which the masses were celebrated, should be kept up. This point was first started by Bishop Hooper, in a sermon before King Edward VI.; and, after this, altars were ordered to be taken down; and, instead of them, a table to be set up, in some convenient place of the chancel. In the first liturgy it was directed, that the priest officiating should stand before the midst of the altar. In the second, that the priest shall stand on the north side of the table. And thus the first dispute was at an end. But then there followed another controversy, whether the table, placed in the room of the altar, ought to stand altar-wise? i. e. in the same place and situation of the altar. In some churches the tables were placed in the middle of the chancels; in others, at the east part thereof, next to the wall. Bishop Ridley endeavoured to make a compromise in his church of St. Paul’s, suffering the table to stand in the place of the old altar; but, beating down the wainscot partition behind, laid all the choir open to the east, leaving the table then to stand in the middle of the chancel. Under this diversity of usage matters continued during this king’s reign; but when Queen Elizabeth came to the crown, and a new review of the liturgy was made, the present clause was added—“and the chancels shall remain as they have done in times past.” Whereby an indulgence is given to those cathedral or collegiate churches, where the table stood altar-wise, and fastened to the east part of the chancel, to retain their ancient practice; but the general rule is otherwise, especially as to parish churches; as in the rubric before the Communion, “the table having, at the communion time, a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the body of the church, or in the chancel, where morning or evening prayer shall be appointed to be said.” So that, by these authorities, where tables were fixed, they ought to remain as they were; and, at the time of the communion, they might either stand at the east wall of the church, or in other place more convenient. But this latitude being granted, several inconveniences arose. Great irreverence was used towards the holy table, hats and gloves were thrown upon it, and the churchwardens and overseers were frequently writing their accounts thereon, the processioning boys eating their loaves and cakes, and dogs leaping up at the bread, to the great scandal of our reformation, not only among the Papists, but also among the Protestant churches abroad. Archbishop Laud, out of zeal to reform these abuses, endeavoured to have the communion table set altar-wise, at the east end of the chancel, and to be railed in, engaging many of the bishops to press this in their visitation articles: and it is one of the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, “that the holy table in every church be decently made, and set in the place where the altar stood; and there commonly covered, as thereto belongeth, and so stand, saving when the communion of the sacrament is to be distributed; at which time, the same shall be so placed in good sort within the chancel,” &c. Great contentions were for many years kept up in this controversy, till the civil war came on, and all things, civil and sacred, were overwhelmed with confusion. Since the Restoration, no positive determination therein being made, the dispute has happily died, and the tables have generally been settled altar-wise, and railed in; the generality of parishioners esteeming it a decent situation.—_Nicholls._

CHANCELLOR. In ancient times, emperors and kings esteemed so highly the piety of bishops, that they gave them jurisdiction in particular causes, as in marriages, adultery, last wills, &c., which were determined by them in their consistory courts. But when many controversies arose in these and other causes, it was not consistent with the character of a bishop to interpose in every litigious matter, neither could he despatch it himself; and therefore it was necessary for the bishop to depute some subordinate officer, experienced both in the civil and canon law, to determine those ecclesiastical causes: and this was the original of diocesan chancellors. For, in the first ages of the Church, the bishops had officers who were called _ecclesiecdici_, that is, church lawyers, who were bred up in the knowledge of the civil and canon law, and their business was to assist the bishop in his jurisdiction throughout the whole diocese. But probably they were not judges of ecclesiastical courts, as chancellors are at this day, but only advised and assisted the bishops themselves in giving judgment; for we read of no chancellors here in all the Saxon reigns, nor after the Conquest, before the time of Henry II. That king, requiring the attendance of bishops in his state councils, and other public affairs, it was thought necessary to substitute chancellors in their room, to despatch those causes which were proper for the bishop’s jurisdiction.

In a few years a chancellor became such a necessary officer to the bishop, that he was not to be without him; for if he would have none, the archbishop of the province might enjoin him to depute one, and if he refuse, the archbishop might appoint one himself; because it is presumed that a bishop alone cannot decide so many spiritual causes as arise within his diocese. The person thus deputed by the bishop has his authority from the law; and his jurisdiction is not, like that of a commissary, limited to a certain place and certain causes, but extends throughout the whole diocese, and to all ecclesiastical matters; not only for reformation of manners, in punishment of criminals, but in all causes concerning marriages, last wills, administrations, &c.—_Burn._

The chancellor in cathedral churches, and anciently in some colleges, was a canon, who had the general care of the literature of the church. He was the secretary of the chapter, the librarian, the superintendent of schools connected with the church, sometimes of the greater schools in the diocese; sometimes, as in Paris, had an academical jurisdiction in the university of the place. He also had the supervision of readers in the choirs, the regulation of preachers in the cathedral, and in many places the more frequent delivery of sermons and of theological lectures than fell to the turn of the other canons. All these offices were not always combined; but one or more of them always belonged to the chancellor. Every cathedral of old foundation in England, and most in Ireland, had originally a chancellor. The title was not so common in France or Italy, where the above-named offices were frequently divided among canons with other official titles. The chancellor _of the church_ (the above-named officer) is not to be confounded with the chancellor of the diocese.—_Jebb._

CHANT. This word, derived from the Latin _cantus_, “a song,” applies, in its most extended sense, to the musical performance of all those parts of the liturgy which, by the rubric, are permitted to be sung. A distinction, however, is to be made between _singing_ and chanting. Chanting does not apply to the performance of those metrical versions of the Psalms, the use of which in parish churches, though legitimate, as sanctioned by authority, is not contemplated by the rubric. Neither does it apply to those musical arrangements of the canticles, hymns, and of the Nicene Creed, used in collegiate churches, and technically called “services,” which though originally derived from chants, have long found a distinct feature in the choral service. The chant properly signifies that plain tune to which the prayers, the litany, the versicles, and responses, and the psalms, and (where services are not in use) the canticles, are set, in choirs and places where they sing. In the chant, when properly and fully performed, both the minister and the choir bear their respective parts. The minister recites the prayers, and all the parts of the service which he is enjoined to say alone, (except the lessons,) in one sustained note, occasionally varied at the close of a cadence: and the choir makes the responses in harmony, sometimes in unison. But in the psalms and canticles both the minister and choir join together in the chant, without distinction, each verse being sung in full harmony.

The chanting of the prayers has always been observed in our principal cathedrals; and till recent times, it was universal in all those places within the reformed Church of England where choral foundations existed; and therefore the disuse of this custom, in any such establishments, is a plain contradiction to the spirit of our liturgy. It is an usage so very ancient, that some learned men have derived it, with every appearance of probability, from the practice of the Jewish Church; whence we have unquestionably derived the chanting of the psalms. It has prevailed in every portion of the Church, eastern or western, reformed or unreformed, since a liturgy has been used. And traces of this custom are to be found in all places of the world.

Of the chants for the psalms, the most ancient which are used in our Church are derived from some coeval, in all likelihood, with Christianity itself. Of this, however, there is no proof: and it is a mere baseless conjecture to refer them, as some do, to the strains of the temple worship. According to present custom, the chant consists of two kinds, single and double. The single chant, which is the most ancient kind, is an air consisting of two parts; the first part terminating with the point or colon (:), which uniformly divides each verse of the psalms or canticles in the Prayer Book, the second part terminating with the verse itself. The double chant is an air consisting of four strains, and consequently extending to two verses. This kind of chant does not appear to be older than the time of Charles II.; and is peculiar to the Church of England.

In chanting, special heed should be taken to two things: first, to observe _strictly_ the “pointing” of the psalms and hymns, “as they are to be sung or said in churches.” We have no more right to alter the rubric in this respect than in any other. Secondly, to chant reverentially, which implies distinctness of utterance, clearness of tone, and moderate slowness as to time. A rapid and confused mode of singing the awful hymns of the Church, is not only utterly destructive of musical effect, but, what is of much greater consequence, is hostile to the promotion of the honour of GOD, and of the edification of man.—_Jebb._

Persons who have heard extempore praying from the mouths of illiterate characters, must have been struck by the rude modulated chant in which it is delivered. Objectors to the cathedral mode of service sometimes aver “intoning” to be unnatural. This is a misconception. “Intoning,” musical or unmusical, is the natural key in which vent is given to a large and important class of devotional feelings: cathedral intoning is this voice correctly timed and tuned to harmony. Non-intoning, on the other hand, or reading, is artificial. No one hears an uneducated person attempt to read in the same tone as he speaks. Reading is an artificial drill, the correction of natural, undisciplined locution.—_Morgan._

CHANTER. (See _Precentor_.) In foreign churches it is synonymous with our lay clerks. The chanters in Dublin college are certain officers selected from the foundation students, whose duty is to officiate as chapel clerks. They are so called from formerly constituting the choir of the chapel.

CHANTRY. A chapel, or other separated place in a church, for the celebration of masses for the soul of some person departed this life. Their ordinary places are mentioned under the head _Church_. The chantry sometimes included the tomb of the person by whom it was founded, as in the splendid examples in Winchester cathedral. It was sometimes an entire aisle, as the golden choir at St. Mary’s, Stamford; and sometimes a separate chapel, as the Beauchamp chapel, St. Mary’s, Warwick, and Henry VII.’s chapel at Westminster.

In the reign of Henry VIII., when the belief of purgatory began to decline, it was thought an unnecessary thing to continue the pensions and endowments of chantry priests; therefore, in the 37 of Henry VIII. cap. 4, those chantries were given to the king, who had power at any time to issue commissions to seize their endowments, and take them into his possession: but this being in the last year of his reign, there were several of those endowments which were not seized by virtue of any such commissions; therefore, in the first year of Edward VI. cap. 14, those chantries which were in being five years before the session of that parliament, and not in the actual possession of Henry VIII., were adjudged to be, and were, vested in that king. Cranmer endeavoured to obtain that the disposal of the chantries, &c., should be deferred until the king should be of age—hoping that if they were saved from the hands of the laity until that time, Edward might be persuaded to apply the revenues to the relief of the poor parochial clergy; but the archbishop’s exertions were unsuccessful.

CHAPEL. In former times, when the kings of France were engaged in wars, they always carried St. Martin’s cope (_cappa_) into the field, which was kept as a precious relic, in a _tent_ where mass was said, and thence the place was called _capella_, the chapel. The word was gradually applied to any consecrated place of prayer, not being the parish church.

With us in England there are several sorts of chapels:

1. Royal chapels. (See _Chapel Royal_.) 2. Domestic chapels, built by noblemen for private worship in their families. 3. College chapels, attached to the different colleges of the universities. 4. Chapels of ease, built for the ease of parishioners, who live at too great a distance from the parish church, by the clergy of which the services of the chapel are performed. 5. Parochial chapels, which differ from chapels of ease on account of their having a permanent minister, or incumbent, though they are in some degree dependent upon the mother church. A parochial chapelry, with all parochial rites independent of the mother church, as to sacraments, marriages, burials, repairs, &c., is called a _reputed parish_. 6. Free chapels; such as were founded by kings of England, and made exempt from episcopal jurisdiction. 7. Chapels which adjoin to any part of the church; such were formerly built by persons of consideration as burial-places. To which may be added chapels of corporation societies, and eleemosynary foundation; as the mayor’s chapel at Bristol, &c., the chapels of the inns of court, chapels of hospitals and almshouses.—_Burn._

The word chapel in foreign countries frequently means the choir or chancel. This may possibly be the meaning intended in the rubric preceding Morning Prayer, directing the Morning and Evening Prayers to be used in the accustomed place of the church, chapel, or chancel. It may allude to the college chapels, or such collegiate chapels as St. George’s at Windsor, or to the usage of some cathedrals of having early morning prayer (as at Gloucester, &c.) in the Lady chapel, or late evening prayer (as at Durham) in the Galilee chapel. Henry VII.’s chapel at Westminster was, at least in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, used for this purpose.—_Jebb._

CHAPEL ROYAL. The chapel royal is under the government of the dean of the chapel, and not within the jurisdiction of any bishop. But the archbishop is the first chaplain and _parochus_ of the sovereign. The deanery was an office of ancient standing in the court, but discontinued in 1572, till King James’s accession, then it was revived in the person of Dr. Montague.—_Heylin’s Life of Laud._ Next to the dean is the subdean, who has the special care of the chapel service; a clerk of the court, with his deputies, a prelate or clergyman, whose office it is to attend the sovereign at Divine service, and to wait on her in her private oratory.—There are forty-eight chaplains in ordinary, who wait four in each month, and preach on Sundays and holidays; to read Divine service when required on week days, and to say grace in the absence of the clerk of the closet. The other officers are, a confessor of the household, now called chaplain of the household, who has the pastoral care of the royal household; ten priests in ordinary (whose duties are like those of chaplains, or vicars in cathedrals); sixteen gentlemen of the chapel, who with ten choristers now form the choir; and other officers. The officiating members of the chapel royal were formerly much more numerous than now; thus there were thirty-two gentlemen of the chapel in King Edward VI.’s reign, and twenty-three in King James I.’s. The priests in ordinary, properly speaking, form part of the choir. In strictness this establishment is ambulatory, and ought to accompany the sovereign, of which practice we have many proofs in ancient records.

The chapel royal in Dublin consists of a dean and twenty-four chaplains, (who preach in turn,) and a choir of laymen. Before the legal establishment of Presbyterianism in Scotland, the royal chapel of Holyrood had a full establishment of chaplains, &c., and the liturgy was then celebrated chorally, at least in the reign of King Charles I.

CHAPLAIN. A person authorized to officiate in the chapels of the queen, or in the private oratories of noblemen. The name is derived from _capella_; the priests who superintend the capella being called _Capellani_. According to a statute of Henry VIII., the persons vested with a power of retaining chaplains, together with the number each is allowed to qualify, are as follow: “an archbishop, eight; a duke or bishop, six; marquis or earl, five; viscount, four; baron, knight of the garter, or lord chancellor, three; a duchess, marchioness, countess, baroness, the treasurer or comptroller of the king’s household, clerk of the closet, the king’s secretary, dean of the chapel, almoner, and master of the rolls, each of them, two; chief justice of the King’s Bench, and warden of the Cinque Ports, each, one.” In England there are forty-eight chaplains to the queen, called chaplains in ordinary. Clergymen who officiate in the army and navy, in the gaols, public hospitals, and workhouses, are called chaplains. Chaplain is also a comprehensive name, applied, more rarely in England than abroad, to the members of cathedrals and collegiate churches and chapels, who are responsible for the daily service. In a few instances it is applied to the superior members. Thus at Lichfield, there were five _capellani principales_, major canons, whose office it was to serve at the great altar, rule the choir, &c., (_Dugd._ _Mon._ ed. 1830, vi. 1257,) and at Winchester college the ten fellows are called, in the original charter, “_capellani perpetui_;” in contradistinction to the _capellani conductitii_, or _remotivi_;—and the principal duty of these chaplain-fellows was to officiate in the chapel. But in general, a chaplain signified a minister of the Church of inferior rank, a substitute for and coadjutor of the canons in chanting, and in the performance of the Divine offices. (See _Dictionnaire de droit canonique, par Durand de Maillane_, Lyons, 1787.) They were so called from serving in the _capella_ or choir, at the various offices, and in the various side chapels, in contradistinction to the capitular canons, whose peculiar privilege it was to serve at the great altar. Under the name of chaplain, were included minor canons, vicars choral, and similar officers, who had a variety of designations abroad, unknown to us, such as porticuristi, demi-canons, semi-prebends, &c., &c.

The name of chaplain, in its choral sense, is retained with us only at Christ Church Oxford, Manchester, and the colleges at the universities. At the latter, they are frequently styled in the old charters, _capellani conductitii_ or _remotivi_; by which is to be understood, that they were originally, at least, intended to be mere stipendiaries, adjuncts to the foundation; as contrasted with those who have a permanent, corporate interest, or an endowment in fee; like the _præbendati_ in the foreign cathedrals, or the incorporated vicars choral in our own cathedrals. (See _College_, _Prebendary_, and _Vicars Choral_.) The chaplains at Cambridge are commonly called _conducti_, though originally they were designated, as at Oxford, _capellani conductitii_; a designation which it were to be wished were changed for the more proper name of chaplain. Before the Reformation the _capellani_ to be found in many of the old cathedrals, were exclusive of the vicars choral, and were chanting priests. These sometimes formed corporations or colleges. Abroad, the chaplains in many places discharged both the duties of chanting priests and vicars choral, or minor canons; each having his separate chapel for daily mass; but all being obliged to unite in discharging the Divine offices, at least at matins and vespers in the great choirs.—_Jebb._

CHAPTER. (See _Bible_.) The word is derived from the Latin _caput_, head; and signifies one of the principal divisions of a book, and, in reference to the Bible, one of the larger sections into which its books are divided. This division, as well as that consisting of verses, was introduced to facilitate reference, and not to indicate any natural or accurate division of the subjects treated in the books. For its origin, see _Bible_.