Chapter XXXV: Act 46: , Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, King James VI., do (11)

FLAGELLANTS. A name given, in the 13th century, to a sect of people among the Christians, who made a profession of disciplining themselves: it was begun in 1260, at Perugia, by Rainerus, a hermit, who exhorted people to do penance for their sins, and had a great number of followers. In 1349, they spread themselves over all Poland, Germany, France, Italy, and England, carrying a cross in their hands, a cowl upon their heads, and going naked to the waist; they lashed themselves twice a day, and once in the night, with knotted cords stuck with points of pins, and then lay grovelling upon the ground, crying out mercy: from this extravagance they fell into a gross heresy, affirming that their blood united in such a manner with CHRIST’S that it had the same virtue; that after thirty days’ whipping they were acquitted from the guilt and punishment of sin, so that they cared not for the sacraments. They persuaded the common people that the gospel had ceased, and allowed all sorts of perjuries. The frenzy lasted a long time, notwithstanding the censures of the Church, and the edicts of princes, for their suppression.

FLAGON. A vessel used to contain the wine, before and at the consecration, in the holy eucharist. In the marginal rubric in the prayer of consecration, the priest is ordered “to lay his hand upon every vessel (be it chalice or flagon) in which there is any wine to be consecrated,” but in the same prayer he is told to take the cup only in his hand; and the rubric before the form of administering the cup stands thus, “the minister that delivereth the cup.” The distinction then between the flagon and the cup or chalice will be, that the latter is the vessel in which the consecrated wine is administered; the flagon, that in which some of the wine is placed for consecration, if there be more than one vessel used.

FLORID STYLE OF GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE. The later division of the Perpendicular style, which prevailed chiefly during the Tudor era, and is often called the Tudor style.

FLOWERS. Strewing with flowers is a very simple and most innocent method of ornamenting the Christian altar, which is enjoined indeed by no law, but which is sanctioned by the custom of some churches in this kingdom, in which also the Protestant churches in Germany agree. This way of bringing in the very smallest of GOD’S works to praise him is extremely ancient, and is several times alluded to by the Fathers; especially by St. Jerome, who does not think it unworthy a place in the panegyric of his friend Nepotian, that his pious care for the Divine worship was such that he made flowers of many kinds, and the leaves of trees, and the branches of the vine, contribute to the beauty and ornament of the church. These things, says St. Jerome, were, indeed, but trifling in themselves; but a pious mind, devoted to CHRIST, is intent upon small things as well as great, and neglects nothing that pertains even to the meanest office of the Church. This custom has been immemorially observed in some English churches. It has also been the custom in some places, on Easter morning to adorn with flowers the graves of those at least who died within the year.

FONT. (_Fons_, a fountain.) The vase or basin at which persons seeking regeneration are baptized. The rites of baptism in the first times were performed in fountains and rivers, both because their converts were many, and because those ages were unprovided with other baptisteries. We have no other remainder of this rite but the name: for hence it is that we call our baptisteries “Fonts,” which, when religion found peace, were built and consecrated for the more reverence and respect of the sacrament. These were placed at first at some distance from the church; (see _Baptistery_;) afterwards in the church porch, and that significantly, because baptism is the entrance into the Church mystical, as the porch of the temple. At last they were introduced into the church itself, being placed at the west end, near the south entrance. They were not admitted in the first instance into every church, but into the cathedral of the diocese, thence called “the mother church,” because it gave spiritual birth by baptism. Afterwards they were introduced into rural churches. Wheresoever they stood, they were always held in high estimation by true Christians. A font preserved in the royal jewel-house, and formerly used for the baptism of the infants of the royal family, was of silver. In England, the fonts are generally placed near the west door, or south-western porch.

Edm. “There shall be a font of stone or other competent material in every church, which shall be decently covered and kept, and not converted to other uses. And the water wherein the child shall be baptized shall not be kept above seven days in the font.”

By Canon 81. “According to a former constitution, too much neglected in many places, there shall be a font of stone in every church and chapel where baptism is to be ministered, the same to be set in the ancient usual places; in which only font the minister shall baptize publicly.”

“When there are children to be baptized, the parents shall give knowledge thereof over-night, or in the morning before the beginning of morning prayer, to the curate. And then the godfathers and godmothers, and the people with the children, must be ready at the font, either immediately after the last lesson at morning prayer, or else immediately after the last lesson at evening prayer, as the curate by his discretion shall appoint. And the priest coming to the font, (which is then to be filled with pure water,) and standing there, shall say.”—_Rubric to the Ministration of Public Baptism of Infants, to be used in Church._

In which rubric it may be observed, that there is no note of a pewter, crockery, wedgewood, or other such like basin within the font, to hold the water, which the carelessness or irreverence of some has permitted of late; but that _the font_ is to be filled with pure water: and also that it is _then_ to be filled, and not just at the convenience of the clerk at any time previous; the like reverence being shown herein as in the parallel order about the elements in the other holy sacrament, “The priest shall _then_ place upon the table,” &c.

“And if they shall be found fit, then the godfathers and godmothers (the people being assembled upon the Sunday or holy-day appointed) shall be ready to present them at the font, immediately after the second lesson, either at morning or evening prayer, as the curate in his discretion shall think fit.”

“Then shall the priest take each person to be baptized by the right hand, and placing him conveniently by the font, according to his discretion, shall ask the godfathers and godmothers the name? and then shall dip him in the water, or pour water upon him, saying.”—_Rubrics in the Ministration of Baptism to such as are of Riper Years._

FORMATÆ. (See _Literæ Formatæ_.)

FORMS OF PRAYER, _for Special Occasions_. Besides the great festivals and fasts of the Church universal, there will be, in each Church, continually recurring occasions of thanksgiving or humiliation, and some events of importance, which ought to be thus celebrated, and for which forms of prayer will be accordingly appointed by competent authority. The days thus set apart in the Church of England for the celebration of great events in our history are four: the 5th of November, the 30th of January, the 29th of May, and the 20th of June, the reasons for which are thus set forth in the several titles to the services enjoined on those days:—

“A Form of Prayer with Thanksgiving, to be used yearly upon the 5th
day of November, for the happy deliverance of King James I., and the
three estates of England, from the most traitorous and
bloody-intended massacre by gunpowder. And also for the happy
arrival of his Majesty King William on this day, for the deliverance
of our Church and nation.”

“A Form of Prayer with Fasting, to be used yearly on the 30th of
January, being the day of the martyrdom of the blessed King Charles
the First; to implore the mercy of GOD, that neither the guilt of
that sacred and innocent blood, nor those other sins, by which GOD
was provoked to deliver up both us and our king into the hands of
cruel and unreasonable men, may at any time hereafter be visited
upon us or our posterity.”

“A Form of Prayer with Thanksgiving to Almighty GOD, for having put an
end to the great Rebellion, by the restitution of the king and royal
family, and the restoration of the government, after many years’
interruption; which unspeakable mercies were wonderfully completed
upon the 29th of May, in the year 1660. And in memory thereof that
day in every year is by act of parliament appointed to be for ever
kept holy.”

“A Form of Prayer with Thanksgiving to Almighty GOD, to be used in all
churches and chapels within this realm, every year, upon the 20th
day of June, being the day on which her Majesty began her happy
reign.”

When passing events, such as a pestilence, or its removal, call for humiliation or thanksgiving, it is usual for the Crown to require the archbishop of Canterbury to prepare a form of prayer for the occasion, which is then sent through the several suffragan bishops to the clergy in their respective dioceses, with the command of the archbishop and bishop that it shall be used on certain fixed days, so long as the occasion shall demand.

This charge would fall on each separate bishop, were the Church of England separated from the State, and not distributed into provinces.

FORMULARY. (See _Common Prayer_, _Liturgy_.) A book containing the rites, ceremonies, and prescribed forms of the Church. The formulary of the Church of England is the Book of Common Prayer.

This may be a convenient place to treat of forms of prayer generally.

To the illustrious divines who conducted the reformation of our Church, in the reigns of Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, any abstract objections to a prescribed form of prayer seem never to have occurred, for these were all the inventions of a later period. Ridiculous it would be, if we were going to address a human sovereign, to permit one of our number to utter in the royal presence any unpremeditated words, which might chance at the time to come into his head; and not less ridiculous,—if it be allowable to use such an expression under such circumstances,—would they have thought it to permit the priest to offer at the footstool of the KING of kings, a petition in the name of the Church, of which the Church had no previous cognizance; to require the people to say “Amen” to prayers they had never considered, or to offer as joint prayers what they had never agreed to offer.

But, as has been observed, it was not upon the abstract question that they were called to decide. In their Church, the Church of England, when they were appointed to preside over it, they found prescribed forms of prayer in use. They were not rash innovators, who thought that whatever is must be wrong; but, on the contrary, they regarded the fact that a thing was already established as an argument _a priori_ in its favour; and therefore they would only have inquired, whether prescribed forms of prayer were _contrary_ to Scripture, if such an inquiry had been necessary. We say, if such an inquiry had been necessary, because the slightest acquaintance with Scripture must at once have convinced them that contrary to Scripture could not be that practice, for which we can plead the precedent of Moses and Miriam, and the daughters of Israel, of Aaron and his sons when they blessed the people, of Deborah and Barak; when the practice was even more _directly_ sanctioned by the HOLY GHOST at the time he inspired David and the psalmists; for what are the psalms but an inspired form of prayer for the use of the Church under the gospel, as well as under the law? The services of the synagogue, too, it is well known, were conducted according to a prescript form. To those services our blessed LORD did himself conform: and severely as he reproved the Jews for their departure, in various particulars, from the principles of their fathers, against their practice in this particular never did he utter one word of censure; nay, he _confirmed_ the practice, when he himself gave to his disciples a form of prayer, and framed that prayer too on the model, and in some degree in the very words, of prayers then in use. Our LORD, moreover, when giving his directions to the rulers of his Church, at the same time that he conferred on them authority to bind and to loose, directed them to agree touching what they should ask for, which seems almost to convey an injunction to the rulers of every particular Church to provide their people with a form of prayer.

The fact that we _find_ this injunction in Scripture, renders probable the universal tradition of the universal Church, which traces to the apostles, or apostolic men, the four great liturgies, (which have, in all parts of the Church, afforded the model according to which all others have been framed,) and which affirms that the apostles instituted a form of worship wherever they established a Church. It would be easy, if the occasion required it, to show, from a variety of passages in holy writ, that while much can be adduced in corroboration of this tradition, _nothing_ but _conjecture_ can be cited against it. With respect to those passages which, referring prayer to the influence of the HOLY SPIRIT upon the soul of man, are sometimes brought forward as militating against the adoption of a form, they cannot have fallen under the notice of our reformers, since the application of them to this purpose was never dreamt of till about 200 years ago, when men, having determined in their wilfulness to reject the liturgy, searched for every possible authority which might, by constructions the most forced, support their determination; and the new interpretation they thus put upon Scripture, may be considered as rather the plea of their wishes than the verdict of their conviction. The adduction, indeed, of such passages for such a purpose is a gratuitous assumption of the question in dispute, and will not for a moment hold weight in the balance of the sanctuary. According to the interpretation of those ancients, whose judgment is the more valuable because (living before any controversy was raised on the subject) they were little likely to be warped, or their opinions determined, by the prejudices of sect, or the subtleties of system, what these passages of Scripture mean is _this_, and simply this: that the HOLY GHOST, who is the author and giver of every good and perfect gift, must stir up in our hearts that spirit of devotion and holiness of temper, without which the service we render is but the service of the lips, and is useless, if not profane.

It is, then, to the _mind_ with which we _pray_, not to the words which we adopt, that those passages of Scripture refer, in which we are exhorted to pray in the Spirit. But admitting, for the sake of argument, that where we are told that the SPIRIT will teach us to pray, the promise is applicable to the very expressions, even this cannot be produced as an argument against a form of prayer. For, whatever may be a man’s imaginary gift of prayer, this is quite certain, that his thoughts must precede his tongue; that before he speaks he must think. And not less clear is it, that after he has conceived a thought, he may, for a moment, restrain his tongue, and set down that thought upon paper. To suppose that the intervention of the materials for committing his thoughts to writing must, of necessity, drive away the HOLY SPIRIT, would not only in itself be absurd, but it would be tantamount to a denial of the inspiration of the written Scriptures. If the first conceptions were of GOD and GOD’S Spirit, then, of course, they are so still, even after they have been written;—the mere writing of them, the mere committing of them to paper, can have nothing whatever to do with the question of inspiration, either one way or the other. If a man, therefore, asserts that his extemporary prayers are to be attributed to the inspiration of the HOLY GHOST, we can at once reply that our prayers, in our Prayer Book, are, on his own principles, quite as much so, with this further advantage, that they have been carefully compared with Scripture, and tested thereby. No Scriptural Christian, no one not mad with folly, will contend that, on that account, they are less spiritual; though, on the other hand, we may fairly doubt whether an extemporiser is not acting in direct opposition to Scripture, for Scripture says, (Eccles. v. 2,) “Be not rash with thy mouth to utter anything before GOD, for GOD is in heaven, and thou upon earth:” and who in the world is hasty to utter anything before GOD, if it be not the man who prays to him extemporally?

Again, the bishops and divines, by whom our Church was reformed, recognised it as the duty of the Church to excite emotions of solemnity rather than of enthusiasm, when she leads her children to the footstool of that throne which, if a throne of grace, is also a throne of glory. And, therefore, when discarding those ceremonies which, not of primitive usage, had been abused, and might be abused again, to the purposes of superstition, they still made ample provision that the services of the sanctuary should be conducted with decent ceremony, and orderly form, and impressive solemnity, and in our cathedrals and the royal chapels with magnificence and grandeur. They sought not to annihilate; they received with the profoundest respect those ancient ceremonials and forms of prayer which had been used in their Church from the first planting of Christianity in this island. These ancient forms, however, had been used in many respects, though gradually corrupted. In every age, men had made the attempt to render them more and more conformable to the spirit of the age, and (in ages of darkness) superstitions in _practice_, and novelties, and therefore errors, in _doctrine_, had crept in. Our wise-hearted reformers, intent, not on pleasing the people, nor regaining popularity, nor on consulting the spirit of the age, but simply and solely on ascertaining and maintaining the truth as it is in JESUS, having obtained a commission from the Crown, first of all compared the existing forms of worship with the inspired word of GOD, being determined at once to reject what was plainly and palpably at variance therewith. For example, the prayers before the Reformation had been offered in the Latin language, a language no longer intelligible to the mass of the people; but to pray in a tongue not understood by the people, is plainly and palpably at variance with Scripture; and, consequently, the first thing they did was to have the liturgy translated into English. Having taken care that nothing should remain in the forms of worship contrary to Scripture, they proceeded (by comparing them with the most ancient rituals) to renounce all usages not clearly primitive; and, diligently consulting the works of the Fathers, they embodied the doctrines universally received by the early Church in that book which was the result and glory of their labours, the Book of Common Prayer. The work of these commissioned divines was submitted to the convocation of the other bishops and clergy, and being approved by them, and authorized by the Crown, was laid before the two houses of parliament, and was accepted by the laity, who respectfully thanked the bishops for their labour. And thus it is seen, that the English Prayer Book was not composed in a few years, or by a few men; it has descended to us from the first ages of Christianity. It has been shown by Palmer, that there is scarcely a portion of our Prayer Book which cannot, in some way, be traced to ancient offices. And this it is important to note; first, because it shows that as the Papist in England is not justified in calling his the old Church, since _ours_ is the old Church reformed, _his_ a sect, in this country, comparatively new; so neither may he produce his in opposition to ours as the old liturgy. All that is really ancient we retained, when the bishops and divines who reformed our old Church corrected, from Scripture and antiquity, our old liturgy. What they rejected, and the Papists adhered to, were innovations and novelties introduced during the middle ages. And it is important to observe this, in the next place, since it is this fact which constitutes the value of the Prayer Book, regarded, as we do regard it, not only as a manual of devotion, but also as an interpreter of Scripture. It embodies the doctrines and observances which the early Christians (having received them from the apostles themselves) preserved with reverential care, and handed down as a sacred deposit to their posterity.

FRANCISCANS, or MINORITES. (_Fratres Minores_, as they were called by their founder.) An order of friars in the Romish Church, and so denominated from him they call St. Francis, their first founder in 1206, who prescribed the following rules to them: That the rule and life of the brother minors (for so he would have those of his order called) was to observe the gospel under obedience, possessing nothing as their own, and live in charity; then he showed how they should receive novices after a year’s noviciate, after which it was not allowed them to leave the order; he would have his friars make use of the Roman breviary, and the converts or lay-brethren to write every day, for their office, seventy-six Paternosters; besides Lent, he ordered them to fast from All-saints to Christmas, and to begin Lent on twelfthtide; he forbade them to ride on horseback, without some urgent necessity; and would have them in their journeys to eat of whatsoever was laid before them: they were to receive no money, neither directly nor indirectly; that they ought to get their livelihood by the labour of their hands, receiving for it anything but money; that they ought to possess nothing of their own, and when their labour was not sufficient to maintain them, they ought to go a begging, and, with the alms so collected, to help one another; that they ought to confess to their provincial ministers those sins, the absolution of which was reserved to them, that they might receive from them charitable corrections; that the election of their general ministers, superiors, &c. ought to be in a general assembly; that they ought not to preach without leave of the ordinaries of each diocese, and of their superiors. Then he prescribed the manner of admonition and correction; how that they ought not to enter into any nunnery, to be godfathers to any child, nor to undertake to go into any foreign countries to convert infidels, without leave of their provincial ministers; and then he bids them ask of the pope a cardinal for governor, protector, and corrector of the whole order.

Francis, their founder, was born in 1182, at Assisi, in the province of Umbria, in Italy, of noble parentage, but much more renowned for his holy life. His baptismal name was John, but he assumed that of Francis, from having learned the French language. He renounced a considerable estate, with all the pleasures of the world, to embrace a voluntary poverty, and live in the practice of the greatest austerities. Going barefoot, and embracing an apostolical life, he performed the office of preacher on Sundays and other festivals, in the parish churches. In the year 1206, or 1209, designing to establish a religious order, he presented to Pope Innocent III. a copy of the rules he had conceived, praying that his institute might be confirmed by the holy see. The pope, considering his despicable appearance, and the extreme rigour of his rules, bid him go find out swine, and deliver them the rule he had composed, as being fitter for such animals than for men. Francis, being withdrawn, went and rolled himself in the mire with some swine, and, in that filthy condition, again presented himself before the pope, beseeching him to grant his request. The pope, moved hereby, granted his petition, and confirmed his order.

From this time Francis became famous throughout all Italy, and many persons of birth, following his example, forsook the world, and put themselves under his direction. Thus this order of friars, called Minors, spread all over Europe; who, living in cities and towns, by tens and sevens, preached in the villages and parish churches, and instructed the rude country people. Some of them likewise went among the Saracens, and into Pagan countries, many of whom obtained the crown of martyrdom. Francis died at Assisi in 1226. He never received higher orders than the diaconate.

It is pretended that, a little before the death of St. Francis, there appeared wounds in his hands and feet, like those of our Saviour, continually bleeding, of which, after his death, there appeared not the least token. He was buried in his own oratory at Rome, and his name was inserted in the catalogue of saints.

The first monastery of this order was at Assisi, in Italy, where the Benedictines of that place gave St. Francis the church of St. Mary, called Portiuncula. Soon after, convents were erected in other places; and afterwards St. Francis founded others in Spain and Portugal. In the year 1215, this order was approved in the general Lateran council. Then St. Francis, returning to Assisi, held a general chapter, and sent missions into France, Germany, England, and other parts. This order made so great a progress in a short time, that, at the general chapter held at Assisi, in 1219, there met 5000 friars, who were only deputies from a much greater number. There were in the middle of the last century above 7000 houses of this order, and in them above 115,000 monks: there are also above 900 monasteries of Franciscan nuns. This order has produced four popes, forty-five cardinals, and an infinite number of patriarchs, archbishops, and two electors of the empire; besides a great number of learned men and missionaries.

The Franciscans came into England during the life of their founder, in the reign of King Henry III. Their first establishment was at Canterbury. They zealously opposed King Henry VIII., in the affair of his divorce; for which reason, at the suppression of the monasteries, they were expelled before all others, and above 200 of them thrown into gaols; thirty-two of them coupled in chains like dogs, and sent to distant prisons; others banished, and others condemned to death. Whilst this order flourished in England, this province was divided into seven parts or districts, called _custodies_, because each of them was governed by a provincial, or superior, called the _custos_, or guardian of the district. The seven custodies were, that of London, consisting of nine monasteries; that of York, consisting of seven monasteries; that of Cambridge, containing nine monasteries; that of Bristol, containing nine monasteries; that of Oxford, in which were eight monasteries; that of Newcastle, in which were nine monasteries; and that of Worcester, in which were nine monasteries; in all, sixty monasteries.

The first establishment of Franciscans in London was begun by four friars, who hired for themselves a certain house in Cornhill, of John Travers, then sheriff of London, and made it into little cells; where they lived till the summer following, when they were removed, by John Iwyn, citizen and mercer of London, to the parish of St. Nicholas in the shambles. There he assigned them land for the building of a monastery, and entered himself into the order.

FRATERNITIES, in Roman Catholic countries, are societies for the, so-called, improvement of devotion. They are of several sorts and several denominations. Some take their name from certain famous instruments of piety. The more remarkable are,

1. The fraternity of the Rosary. This society owes its rise to Dominic, the founder of the Rosary. He appointed it, they say, by order of the Blessed Virgin, at the time when he was labouring on the conversion of the Albigenses. After the saint’s death, the devotion of the Rosary became neglected, but was revived by Alanus de Rupe, about the year 1460. This fraternity is divided into two branches, that of the Common Rosary, and that of the Perpetual Rosary. The former is obliged, every week, to say the fifteen divisions of ten beads each, and to confess, and communicate, every first Sunday in the month. The brethren of it are likewise obliged to appear at all processions of the fraternity. The latter are under very strong engagements, the principal of which is, to repeat the rosary perpetually; i. e. there is always some one of them, who is actually saluting the Blessed Virgin in the name of the whole fraternity. 2. The fraternity of the Scapulary, whom it is pretended, according to the Sabbatine bull of Pope John XXII., the Blessed Virgin has promised to deliver out of hell the first Sunday after their death. 3. The fraternity of St. Francis’s girdle are clothed with a sack of a grey colour, which they tie with a cord; and in processions walk barefooted, carrying in their hands a wooden cross. 4. That of St. Austin’s leathern girdle comprehends a great many devotees. Italy, Spain, and Portugal are the countries where are seen the greatest number of these fraternities, some of which assume the name of arch-fraternity. Pope Clement VII. instituted the arch-fraternity of charity, which distributes bread every Sunday among the poor, and gives portions to forty poor girls on the feast of St. Jerome, their patron. The fraternity of death buries such dead as are abandoned by their relations, and causes masses to be celebrated for them.—_Broughton._

FRATRICELLI. Certain heretics of Italy, who had their rise in the marquisate of Ancona, about 1294. They were most of them apostate monks, under a superior, called Pongiloup. They drew women after them on pretence of devotion, and were accused of uncleanness with them in their nocturnal meetings. They were charged with maintaining a community of wives and goods, and denying magistracy. Abundance of libertines flocked after them, because they countenanced their licentious way of living.

FREEMASONS. An ancient guild of architects, to whom church architecture owes much, and to whom is to be attributed a great part of the beauty and uniformity of the ecclesiastical edifices of the several well-marked architectural æras of the middle ages.

The Freemasons at present arrogate to themselves a monstrous antiquity; it is certain, however, that they were in existence early in the tenth century, and that before the close of that century they had been formally incorporated by the pope, with many exclusive privileges, answering to those which are now involved in a patent. The society consisted of persons of all nations and of every rank; and being strictly an ecclesiastical society, the tone of the architecture to which they gave their study became distinctively theological and significant. The principal ecclesiastics of the day were ranked among its members, and probably many of its clerical brethren were actually and actively engaged in its practical operations. In the present day, if the clergy would pay a little more attention to ecclesiastical architecture, we might perhaps rather emulate than regret the higher character of the sacred edifices of the middle ages.

FREE WILL. Since the introduction of Calvinism many persons have been led into perplexity on this subject, by not sufficiently distinguishing between the free will of spontaneous mental preference, and the good will of freely preferring virtue to vice.

By the ancients, on the contrary, who were frequently called upon to oppose the mischievous impiety of fatalism, while yet they stood pledged to maintain the vital doctrine of Divine grace, this distinction was well known and carefully observed.

The Manicheans so denied free will, as to hold a fatal necessity of sinning, whether the choice of the individual did or did not go along with the action.

The Pelagians so held free will, as to deny the need of Divine grace to make that free will a good will.

By the Catholics, each of these systems was alike rejected. They held, that man possesses free will; for, otherwise, he could not be an accountable subject of GOD’S moral government. But they also held, that, in consequence of the fall, his free will was a bad will: whence, with a perfect conscious freedom of choice or preference, and without any violence put upon his inclination, he, perpetually, though quite spontaneously, prefers unholiness to holiness; and thus requires the aid of Divine grace to make his bad will a good will.

The reader may see this point established by quotations from the Fathers in Faber’s work on “Election,” from which this article is taken. He shows also that the doctrine taught by Augustine and the ancients, is precisely that which is maintained by the reformers of our Anglican Church.

Those venerable and well-informed moderns resolve not our evil actions into the compulsory fatal necessity of Manicheism, on the one hand; nor, on the other hand, according to the presumptuous scheme of Pelagianism, do they claim for us a spontaneous choice or preference of good independently of the Divine assistance.

The simple freedom of man’s will, so that, whatever he chooses, he chooses not against his inclination, but through a direct and conscious internal preference of the thing chosen to the thing rejected: this simple freedom of man’s will they deny not.

But, while they acknowledge the simple freedom of man’s will, they assert the quality of its choice or preference to be so perverted by the fall, and to be so distorted by the influence of original sin, that, in order to his choosing the good and rejecting the evil, the grace of GOD, by CHRIST, must both make his bad will a good will, and must also still continue to co-operate with him even when that goodness of the will shall have been happily obtained.

In the tenth Article of the English Church, it is often not sufficiently observed, that our minutely accurate reformers do not say, that the grace of GOD, in the work of conversion, gives us free will, as if we were previously subject to a fatal necessity; but only that the grace of GOD, by CHRIST, prevents us that we may have a good will, and co-operates with us when we have that good will.

The doctrine, in short, of the English Church, when she declares that fallen man cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon GOD, is not that we really prefer the spiritual life to the animal life, and are at the same time by a fatal necessity prevented from embracing it; but it is that we prefer the animal life to the spiritual life, and through the badness of our perverse will, shall continue to prefer it, until (as the Article speaks) the grace of GOD shall prevent us that we may have a good will, or until (as Holy Scripture speaks) the people of the LORD shall be willing in the day of his power.

FRIAR. (From _frater_, brother.) A term common to monks of all orders: founded on this, that there is a kind of brotherhood presumed between the religious persons of the same monastery. It is however commonly confined to monks of the mendicant orders. Friars are generally distinguished into these four principal branches,—1. Franciscans, Minors, or Grey Friars; 2. Augustines; 3. Dominicans, or Black Friars; 4. Carmelites, or White Friars. From these four the rest of the orders in the Roman Church descend. In a more particular sense the term Friar is applied to such monks as are not priests: for those in orders are usually dignified with the appellation of Father.

FRIDAY. Friday was, both in the Greek Church and Latin, a Litany or humiliation day, in memory of CHRIST crucified: and so is kept in ours. It is our weekly fast for our share in the death of CHRIST, and its gloom is only dispersed if Christmas day happens to fall thereon.

FUNERAL SERVICES. (See _Burial of the Dead_ and _Dead_.) The office which the English Church appoints to be used at the burial of the dead is, like all her other offices, of most ancient date, having been used by the Church in the East and the West from the remotest antiquity, and having been only translated into English by the bishops and divines who reformed our Church. But against this office, as against others, cavils have been raised. The expression chiefly cavilled at in this service is that with which we commit our brother’s “body to the ground, earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life, through our LORD JESUS CHRIST.” Now here it will be observed, that no _certainty_ is expressed that the individual interred will rise to the resurrection of glory. The _certainty_ is,—that there _will_ be a resurrection to eternal life,—while a _hope_ is first implied, and afterwards expressed, that in this resurrection the individual buried will have a part. And who are they who will chide the Church for hoping thus,—even though it be sometimes a hope against hope? The Church refuses to perform the funeral service over persons not baptized, or who have been excommunicated, because she only performs her good offices for those who are within her communion. More than this cannot be expected of any society. But the only class of persons who may have died within her communion, over whom she refuses to perform the burial service, is that of those who have died guilty of self-murder. It is so very evident that such persons died in impenitence and mortal sin, (unless they were insane when they did the act,) that she is therefore obliged to exclude them. With respect to all others, she remembers our LORD’S injunction—Judge not. He does not say, judge not harshly—he says, judge not—judge not at all. The province of judging belongs to GOD, and to GOD only. The Church leaves it to that supreme and irresponsible jurisdiction to make the necessary particular distinctions in the _individual_ application of the doctrine she teaches _generally_. Surely those very persons who now cavil at the Church for her charity in this respect, would be the first to cast the stone at her, if, when they brought the body of a dead brother to the church, our clergy should have to say, “We will not express a hope in this case, because it does not admit of a hope;” as they must do if they were to take upon themselves the authority to judge in each particular case. No. Throughout the Burial Service we look to the bright side of the question, we remember that there is a resurrection to life, and we hope that to that resurrection each brother we inter will be admitted. And is the Church wrong? Then let the caviller stay away. If _he_ chooses to judge of his departed relative, and to consign him without hope to the grave, let him bury him with the burial of an ass. We do not compel him to attend the services of the Church,—let him, then, stay away; if he comes, however, to the church, the Church _will_ express her hope:

Better in silence hide their dead and go,
Than sing a hopeless dirge, or coldly chide
The faith that owns relief from earthly woe.

The last line of this quotation suggests another point to which attention must be directed, viz. the fact of our returning thanks to Almighty GOD for having “delivered our brother out of the miseries of this sinful world.” How, it is asked, can this be done with sincerity, at the very time when the tears and moans of weeping friends seem to belie the assertion? And we answer, it is because the Church assumes that those who attend her services are under the influence of Christian faith; and of Christian faith a most important part consists in the belief of GOD’S especial providence. Except by GOD’S permission, the true Christian believes that not a sparrow can fall to the ground, not a hair on our head can perish; and the true Christian also believeth that GOD doth not willingly afflict the children of men, but that when he chasteneth, he doth it even as a father chasteneth his child, for our profit, that we may be partakers of his holiness. Suppose that a parent be taken in the vigour of his strength, from a loving wife and helpless little ones,—and this is, perhaps, the severest dispensation we can conceive:—that the desolate and the destitute should grieve is natural. And are they to be blamed for this? No; for at the grave of Lazarus our blessed LORD groaned in his spirit and wept. Why, indeed, is affliction sent? Is it not sent for this very purpose—to make us grieve? And while affliction is impending, we may pray that it may be averted. Did not the LORD JESUS do the same? Thrice, in his agony, he prayed that the cup of sorrow might be removed from him; thereby affording us an example, that we may pray for the turning away of a calamity,—though at the same time affording us an example to say, when the prayer has not been granted, “FATHER, not my will, but thine be done.” And if the petition, the petition for the life of a parent or a friend, has not been granted, why has it been unheeded by the FATHER of mercies? The faith of the true Christian answers, even because GOD foresaw that it would be more conducive to the everlasting welfare of the lost one, the everlasting welfare of his desolate wife, to the everlasting welfare of his destitute children, that he should be taken at the very time he was. This, says the heart of faith, is mysterious in our eyes, but it is the LORD’S doing; it is the LORD, let him do what seemeth him good. It is thus that, in the midst of sighs and groans, the Christian spirit can give GOD thanks while nature weeps, grace consoles, and faith assures us that what has been done is right.

GALILEE. An appendage of some of our large churches is traditionally known by this name, and is supposed to be connected with some purposes of discipline, and to have borrowed its name from the words of the angel at the sepulchre to the women, “Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.” (Mark xvi. 7.) The churches where a Galilee occurs are Durham, Lincoln, and Ely; but they have little in common except the name. That at Ely agrees with that at Durham in being at the west end of the church, but it differs in being to all appearance a mere porch of entrance, while that at Durham is a spacious building with five aisles and three altars; and, so far from its use being as a porch of entrance, the great west entrance was actually closed in the fifteenth century, while the Galilee in all probability retained its original use. That at Lincoln is at the south-west corner of the south transept; it is cruciform in plan, and has over it another chamber of the like size, once apparently arranged as a court of judicature, which favours the idea that the Galilee had some connexion with discipline. This was certainly the case at Durham, for there the consistory court has been held from time immemorial: and there Cardinal Langton erected a font for the children of persons who were excommunicate. But this was nearly 300 years after the building of the Galilee, which was certainly erected by Hugh Pudsey in the twelfth century, that women, who were allowed to proceed but a short distance into that particular church, might have a place where they might frequent the Divine ordinances; and this in itself had something of the nature of discipline. It may be worth noticing in addition, that all the three Galilees still remaining were erected between the middle of the twelfth and the middle of the thirteenth century.

GALLICAN CHURCH. (See _Church of France_.)

GARGOYLE, or GURGOYLE. A water spout, usually in Gothic buildings formed of some grotesque figure.

GEHENNA. The true origin and occasion of this word is this: there was an idol of Moloch, near Jerusalem, in the Valley of Hinnom, to which they offered human sacrifices. The Rabbis say, that they were wont to beat a drum, lest the people should hear the cries of the children that were thrown into the fire when they sacrificed them to idols. This valley was called Geenon, from _Ge_, which signifies a valley, and Ennom, which comes from _Nahom_, that signifies to groan; therefore hell, the place of eternal fire, is called Gehenna. The ancient writers did not make use of this word, and it was first used in the gospel.

GENERATION, THE ETERNAL. (See _Eternity_.) It is thus that the filiation without beginning of the Only Begotten of the FATHER is expressed.

The distinction of a threefold generation of the SON is well known among the learned, and is thus explained:—1. The first and most proper filiation and generation is his eternally existing in and of the FATHER, the eternal Λόγος of the eternal Mind. In respect of this, chiefly, he is the _only begotten_, and a distinct person from the FATHER. His other generations were rather condescensions, first to creatures in general, next to men in particular. 2. His second generation was his _condescension_, _manifestation_, _coming forth_, as it were, from the FATHER, (though never separated or divided from him,) to create the world: this was in time, and a voluntary thing; and in this respect, properly, he may be thought to be first-born of every creature, or before all creatures. 3. His third generation, or filiation, was when he condescended to be born of a pure virgin, and to become man also without ceasing to be GOD.—_Waterland._

The second person of the Trinity is called the SON, yea, and the “only begotten SON of GOD,” because he was begotten of the FATHER, not as others are, by spiritual regeneration, but by eternal generation, as none but himself is, for the opening whereof we must know that GOD that made all things fruitful is not himself sterile or barren; but he that hath given power to animals to generate and produce others in their own nature, is himself much more able to produce one, not only like himself, but of the self-same nature with himself, as he did in begetting his Son, by communicating his own unbegotten essence and nature to him. For the person of the SON was most certainly begotten of the FATHER, or otherwise he would not be his SON; but his essence was unbegotten, otherwise he would not be GOD; and therefore the highest apprehensions that we can frame of this great mystery, the eternal generation of the SON of GOD, is only by conceiving the person of the FATHER to have communicated his Divine essence to the person of the SON; and so of himself begetting his other self the SON, by communicating his own eternal and unbegotten essence to him; I say, by communicating of his _essence_, not of his _person_ to him (for then they would be both the same person, as now they are of the same essence); the essence of the FATHER did not beget the SON by communicating his person to him, but the person of the FATHER begat the SON by communicating his essence to him; so that the person of the SON is begotten, not communicated, but the essence of the SON is communicated, not begotten.

This notion of the FATHER’S begetting the SON, by communicating his essence to him, I ground upon the SON’S own words, who certainly best knew how himself was begotten: “For as the FATHER,” saith he, “hath life in himself, so hath he given to the SON to have life in himself.” (John v. 26.) To have life in himself is an essential property of the Divine nature; and, therefore, wheresoever that is given or communicated, the nature itself must needs be given and communicated too.

Now here we see how GOD the FATHER communicated this his essential property, and so his essence, to the SON; and, by consequence, though he be a distinct person from him, yet he hath the same unbegotten essence with him; and therefore as the FATHER hath life in himself, so hath the SON life in himself, and so all other essential properties of the Divine nature, only with this personal distinction, that the FATHER hath this life in himself, not from the SON, but from himself; whereas, the SON hath it, not from himself, but from the FATHER; or, the FATHER is GOD of himself, not of the SON; the SON is the same GOD, but from the FATHER, not from himself, and therefore not the FATHER, but the SON, is rightly called by the Council of Nice, GOD of God, Light of light, yea, very GOD of very God.—_Beveridge._