Chapter XXXVII: Act 46: , Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, King James VI., do (13)

Dr. Nicholls, after quoting many authorities to show, that the doctrine of Divine grace always prevailed in the Catholic Church, adds, “I have spent perhaps more time in these testimonies than was absolutely necessary; but whatever I have done is to show, that the doctrine of Divine grace is so essential a doctrine of Christianity, that not only the Holy Scriptures and the primitive Fathers assert it, but likewise that the Christians could not in any age maintain their religion without it; it being necessary, not only for the discharge of Christian duties, but for the performance of our ordinary devotions.” And this seems to have been the opinion of the compilers of our most excellent liturgy, in many parts of which both a preventing and co-operating grace is unequivocally acknowledged; particularly in the second collect for Evening Service, in the fourth collect at the end of the Communion Service, and in the collects for Easter Day, for the fifth Sunday after Easter, and for the 3rd, 9th, 17th, 19th, and 25th Sundays after Trinity.

This assistance of Divine grace is not inconsistent with the free agency of men (see _Free Will_): it does not place them under an irresistible restraint, or compel them to act contrary to their will. Though human nature is greatly depraved, yet every good disposition is not totally extinguished, nor is all power of right action entirely annihilated. Men may therefore make some spontaneous, though feeble, attempt to act conformably to their duty, which will be promoted and rendered effectual by the co-operation of GOD’S grace: or the grace of GOD may so far “prevent” our actual endeavours, as to awaken and dispose us to our duty; but yet not in such a degree, that we cannot withstand its influence. In either case our own exertions are necessary to enable us to “work out our own salvation,” but our “sufficiency” for that purpose is from GOD. The joint agency of GOD and man in the work of human salvation is pointed out in the following passage: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is GOD that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil. ii. 12, 13); and therefore we may assure ourselves that free will and grace are not incompatible, though the mode and degree of their co-operation be utterly inexplicable.

GRACE AT MEALS. A short prayer, invoking a blessing upon our food, and expressive of gratitude to GOD for supplying our wants. The propriety of this act is evident from the traditional custom of the Church, and from the Divine command, as interpreted by this custom, (1 Thess. v. 18; 1 Cor. x. 31; 1 Tim. iv. 5,) and from the conduct of our Lord. (Mark viii. 6, 7.)

GRADUAL, or GRAIL. The antiphonary which, before the Reformation, supplied the anthems or verses for the beginning of the Communion, the Offertory, &c., was often called the Gradual, because some of the anthems were chanted on the steps (_gradus_) of the ambon or pulpit.

The Gradual is also an anthem sung in the Roman Church immediately after the Epistle.—_Jebb._

GRAVE. The resting-place of a dead body. The spoliation and desecration of ancient sepulchres is as much an ecclesiastical offence as the robbing of a more recent grave; but where none feel themselves especially aggrieved, there are none to seek redress, and to bring offenders to justice. The law upon the subject seems to stand thus: A corpse once buried cannot legally be taken up to be deposited in another place, without a licence from the ordinary. But in case of a violent death the coroner may order the body to be disinterred, if it has been buried before he has had an opportunity of taking a view for the purposes of his inquest.

If the body, after it has been committed to the grave, be disturbed or removed, it is a subject of ecclesiastical cognizance: yet the common law also protects the corpse; for the taking up of dead bodies, for the purposes of dissection, is an indictable offence, as highly indecent, and _contra bonos mores_.

The property of things deposited with the dead, as the grave-clothes, &c., is in him that had property therein when the dead body was wrapped therewith, and the taking them is felony. The property in hatchments, or other ensigns of honour, is in the heir, or the person concerned in the hereditary distinction. (See _Burial_, and the list of acts of parliament appended to the word _Cemetery_.)

GREEK CHURCH. (See _Church, Greek_.)

GREGORIAN CHANT. (See _Chant_.) This general designation is given to the collection of chants compiled by Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome, about A. D. 600. These chants have continued to be in use from that time to the present day, in the Western Church, and form the basis of our cathedral music. It is known that Gregory merely collected, arranged, and improved the chants which had already been used for centuries before his time. The most learned writers on the subject suppose that they are derived from those introduced by St. Ambrose into his church, at Milan, about A. D. 384. Great improvements, however, having been made in the science of music, subsequently to the time of St. Ambrose, Gregory took advantage of those improvements, and increased the number of ecclesiastical tones, (which somewhat resemble our modern keys,) from four to eight, of which number the Gregorian chants, properly so called, still consist. The four original tones are called authentic, the others plagal. All the eight are now used in some parts of the Greek Church, as in Russia, doubtless adopted from the West. They have been harmonized according to the more recently discovered laws of music, and thus harmonized possess a singular gravity, which character would alone justify their perpetual retention in the Church as the _basis_ of church music.

The Gregorian chant is not limited to psalm chants; it includes the antiphons, versicles, graduals, &c., in short, all the hymns at the various services of the Romish Church. The eight tones, (which are by some multiplied to twelve,) are in fact so many scales, and all the Gregorian hymns or anthems must be written in one or other of these tones. The ancient Gregorian scale admitted no half notes, with the exception of B flat. The Psalm chants had considerable variation in each tone; these variations occurring in the second part of the chant: thus one tone may have three or four cadences; which in fact form so many separate chants. Much of the old English church music, since the Reformation, is based upon the Gregorian chant: though none of our standard musicians were ever servile followers of a system, which, though very venerable, is imperfect.

It may be as well to subjoin a simple rule for ascertaining the _tones_ in which the Gregorian music is written in the old books. In the ancient breviaries and antiphonies, &c., the word EVOVAE frequently occurs, written under certain notes preceding the psalms appropriated to certain offices. This word contains the vowels of the concluding words of the Gloria Patri; viz. sEcVlOrVm AmEn: and by this is meant, that the notes placed above it form the second part of the chant to which the following psalm or psalms are sung: the first part being rarely written. Now to find the _tone_ of the chant, we must take the _first_ note of the _Evovae_, which is the _dominant_, or the _prevailing_, or _reciting_ note of the chant (not the dominant as now technically understood by musicians): and we must take the last note of the Antiphon which follows the Psalm at length: and these two, according to the table here subjoined, give the _tone_ of the chant: the first part of each variation in tone being, as before remarked, always the same; the second part being given in the _Evovae_. The Psalm Tones must be found out in one of the many movements of the Gregorian chant. Care must be taken not to take the last note of the abbreviated antiphon which precedes, but of that which follows, the psalm.

│ Final note, in the │ Dominant or reciting │ Antiphon. │ note, in the Evovae. 1st Tone │ D │ A 2nd Tone │ D │ F 3rd Tone │ E │ C 4th Tone │ E │ A 5th Tone │ F │ C 6th Tone │ F │ A 7th Tone │ G │ D 8th Tone │ G │ C

Of these tones the odd numbers are authentic, the even plagal. The authentic has always a relation to its plagal which follows, and has the same final note, though a different dominant.—_Jebb._

GREY FRIARS. The Franciscans were so called from their grey clothing.

GUARDIAN OF THE SPIRITUALITIES. This is the person or persons in whom the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of any diocese resides, after the death or translation of a bishop. If the vacant see should be an archbishopric, then the dean and chapter are guardians. If a bishop, then the archdeacon of the province.

GURGOILE. (See _Gargoyle_.)

HABAKKUK, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. There is no mention in Scripture, either of the time when this prophet lived, or of the parents from whom he was descended. But as he prophesied the coming of the Chaldeans in the same manner as Jeremiah, it is conjectured that he lived at the same time.

The works of Habakkuk, which are indisputably his, are contained in three chapters. In these the prophet complains very pathetically of the disorders, which he observed in the kingdom of Judea. God reveals to him, that he would shortly punish them in a very terrible manner by the arms of the Chaldeans. He foretells the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar, his metamorphosis, and death. He foretells that the vast designs of Jehoiakim would be frustrated. He speaks against a prince (probably the king of Tyre) who built with blood and iniquity; and he accuses another king (perhaps the king of Egypt) of having intoxicated his friend, in order to discover his nakedness. The third chapter is a song, or prayer to God, whose majesty the prophet describes with the utmost grandeur and sublimity of expression.

HADES. (From ἁ, privative, and ἰδειν, _to see_; the invisible state of the departed.) See _Hell_.

HAGGAI, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. Haggai was born, in all probability, at Babylon, from whence he returned with Zerubbabel. It was this prophet, who, by command from GOD, exhorted the Jews, after their return from the captivity, to finish the rebuilding of the temple, which they had intermitted for fourteen years. His remonstrances had their effect; and to encourage them to proceed in the work, he assured them from GOD, that the glory of this latter house should be greater than the glory of the former house: which was accordingly fulfilled, when CHRIST honoured it with his presence; for, with respect to the building, this latter temple was nothing in comparison of the former.

We know nothing certain of Haggai’s death. The Jews pretend, that he died in the last year of the reign of Darius, at the same time with the prophets Zechariah and Malachi, and that thereupon the spirit of prophecy ceased among the children of Israel. Epiphanius asserts that he was buried at Jerusalem among the priests. The Greeks keep his festival on the 16th of December, and the Latins on the 4th of July—_De Vita et Morte Prophetarum._

HAGIOGRAPHA, i.e. Holy Writings. (From ἅγιος, _holy_, and γραφὴ, _writing_.) A word of great antiquity in the Christian Church, and often used by St. Jerome, taken from the custom of the synagogues, by which the Old Testament was divided into three parts, viz. Moses’s law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; by which last he meant the Psalms, the Proverbs, Job, Ezra, Chronicles, Solomon’s Song, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. The Jews reckon the Book of Daniel and the Lamentations among the Hagiographa, and not among the Prophets, for which Theodoret blames them: but it matters not much, since they acknowledge those books, which they call Hagiographa, to be inspired by GOD, and part of the sacred canon, as well as those of the first and second order.

HAGIOSCOPE. In church architecture, a contrivance, whether by perforating a wall, or by cutting away an angle of it, by which an altar may be seen from some place in a church, or about it, from which it would be otherwise hid. There is a most curious example at Ryhall in Rutland, where there is (or rather was, for it is now blocked up) an opening in the west wall of the north aisle, by which the three altars in the chancel and two aisles were commanded by a person outside the church, though within what seems to have been a little oratory, (now entirely removed,) dedicated to S. Tibald.

Openings sometimes seem to command other points, and may then be well enough called “_Squints_.” At Hannington, in Northamptonshire, for instance, is one which seems intended to enable a person in the porch to see the approach of the minister from Walgrave, a parish very generally united under the same incumbency with Hannington.

HALF COMMUNION, or COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. (See _Communion_ and _Cup_.) The withholding of the cup in the eucharist from the laity. This is the practice of the Church of Rome, and is one of those grievous errors in which that corrupt Church deviates from Catholicism. Not the slightest colour can be brought in its favour, as the Romanists themselves at the Council of Constance were forced to confess: the authority of the primitive Church is against them, as that council acknowledges; nor can they plead the authority of any one of the ancient liturgies. The Church of Rome then is, in this matter, singular and schismatical.

HALLELUJAH. (See _Alleluia_.)

HAMPTON COURT CONFERENCE. A conference appointed by James I. at Hampton Court, in 1603, in order to settle the disputes between the Church and the Puritans. Nine bishops, and as many dignitaries of the Church, appeared on one side, and four Puritan ministers on the other. It lasted for three days. Of this conference the result was a few slight alterations in the liturgy; the baptizing of infants by women, which had been practised in our Church for many hundred years, was forbidden; “remission of sins” inserted in the rubric of absolution; confirmation termed “laying on of hands;” all the thanksgivings, except the general one, were inserted in the Prayer Book; to the catechism was annexed the whole of the latter portion, relative to the two sacraments; and some words were altered in the dominical lessons, with a view to a new translation of the sacred volume.

HATCHMENT; more properly ACHIEVEMENT. In heraldry, the whole armorial bearings of any person fully emblazoned, with shield, crest, supporters, &c. This word is used in particular for the emblazonment of arms hung up in churches, in memory of a gentleman of coat armour, or one of any higher degree. There was formerly much of religion in heraldry; and as the coat was assumed with a religious feeling, so was it at last restored to the sanctuary, in token of thankful acknowledgment to Almighty GOD, with whose blessing it had been borne.

HEARSE. A frame set over the coffin of any great person deceased, and covered with a pall: also the carriage in which corpses are carried to the grave.

HEATHEN. (From ἔθνη, _nations_, or _Gentiles_.) Pagans who worship false gods.

HEAVEN. That place where GOD affords a nearer and more immediate view of himself, and a more sensible manifestation of his glory, than in other parts of the universe. That it is a _place_ as well as a _state_, is clear from John xiv. 2, 3, and from the existence of our LORD’S body there, and the bodies of Enoch and Elijah.

HEBDOMADARIUS. The priest whose weekly turn it was to perform the divine offices in cathedrals and colleges. In some foreign cathedrals it is the designation of a clergyman corresponding to our minor canons, &c. In the Scottish universities the name was given to one of the superior members, whose weekly turn it was to superintend the discipline of the students. The office was effectively exercised at St. Andrew’s, at least, till of late years.—_Jebb._

HELL. (Anglo-Saxon and Icelandic _Hele_, _Hela_, a “cavern;” “concealed place;” “mansion of the dead.”) Two entirely different words in the original language of the New Testament are rendered in our version by the single word “hell.” The first of these is _Hades_, which occurs eleven times in the New Testament, and in every case but one is translated “hell.” Now _Hades_ is never used to denote the place of final torment, the regions of the damned; but signifies “the place of departed spirits,” whether good or bad,—the place where they are kept until the day of judgment, when they shall be re-united to their bodies, and go each to his appointed destiny. The other word, _Gehenna_, signifies the place of torment,—the eternal abode of the wicked. At the time when our translation was made, and the Prayer Book compiled, the English word “hell” had a more extensive meaning than it has at present. It originally signified to _cover over_ or _conceal_; and it is still used in this sense in several parts of England, where, for example, to cover a church or a house with a roof is to _hell_ the building, and the person by whom it is done is called a _hellier_. But the word also denoted the place of future misery, and is accordingly used in that sense in the New Testament, as the translation of _Gehenna_; and in consequence of the changes which our language has experienced during the last 200 years, it is now restricted to this particular meaning. (See _Gehenna_.)

Bearing in mind, then, that _Hades_ was translated by the word “hell,” for want of another more exactly corresponding with the original, the reader will perceive that the article in the Creed, “He descended into hell,” does not refer to the place of final misery; but to that general receptacle of all departed human souls, both penitent and impenitent, where they are reserved in a state of comparative enjoyment or misery, to wait the morning of the resurrection, when their bodies being united to their souls, they will be advanced to complete felicity or woe, in heaven or hell.

One great use of the system of catechising, as enjoined by the Church, is the opportunity it affords of inculcating upon the people such distinctions as these.

It was necessary that our LORD’S death should be attended with all those circumstances which mark the death of men. CHRIST was possessed of a human nature, both body and soul, besides his Divinity. The body of man at death sinks to the grave; and the soul goes to _Hades_, or the place of departed spirits. In like manner the body of our LORD was laid in the tomb, but his soul went to the general repository of human disembodied spirits, “the lower parts of the earth,” (Ps. xvi. 10; Eph. iv. 9, with Ps. lxiii. 9, and Isa. v. 14,) Hades, the place of separated souls, not Gehenna, the place of condemnation; because if it relate to the place of either bliss or misery, it must be the former, in consistence with the LORD’S promise to the penitent thief. (Luke xxiii. 43.)

Five different opinions have been entertained on this subject. First, that the word “descended” is to be taken metaphorically; implying only the efficacy of CHRIST’S death as to the souls departed. But this seems refuted by the passage, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,” (Ps. xvi. 10,) whereas the efficacy of our LORD’S death still continues.

Secondly, that the descent into hell signifies the suffering the torments of the damned; and this in the stead of those who otherwise must have endured them. But it is not to be believed that our LORD could suffer from the “worm that never dieth”—the remorse of conscience, and a sense of the continuance and consequences of the displeasure of GOD, and consequent despair; or that he who overcame the powers of hell could suffer under their vengeance. Nor, again, can he, in this article, be said by a metaphor to have felt the torments of hell, by this meaning only the greatest torments, because all that he felt which we know of, was antecedent to his death, and not afterwards. The torments of hell then cannot be here meant literally, because not supported by truth, nor figuratively, because not applicable.

Thirdly, that the word “soul” does in this passage mean the body, and “hell” merely the grave; and the same words, both in Hebrew and Greek, as used respectively by the psalmist and the apostle, and translated the “soul,” do elsewhere in the Scriptures mean the “body.” As in Numb. vi. 6; Lev. xxi. 11; and xxii. 4; and more particularly, Numb. xix. 11, and 13. And Ainsworth, whose translation is the most literal of any, so uses the word. And again, with respect to the word “hell;” in some passages it can mean nothing but the grave, and is so used by our translation, when Ainsworth uses the word “hell,” as in Gen. xxxvii. 35, and xlii. 38. This mode of explication too, connected with the following article, will fulfil the prophecy, “Thou shalt not leave my soul (body) in hell” (the grave).

Fourthly, that by the “soul” may be understood the nobler part distinguished from the body; or the whole person, both soul and body; or the living soul distinguished from the immortal spirit. And by “hell,” no place whatever, but merely the condition of men in death. But this explanation involves an entirely novel idea as to Hades, which was always understood as some place where the souls of men entered, whether this is in the earth, or out of it, or in whatever unknown part; and from which the Greeks considered those to be excluded who came to a premature death, or whose bodies lay unburied. And in addition, the descent into hell thus explained would be tautologous, meaning nothing more than the being dead, which the preceding article had declared.

Fifthly, and this is apparently the best explanation, as it was always the opinion entertained by the Church—that the “soul” was the spirit, or rational part, of CHRIST, that which the Jews could “not kill,” and “hell,” a place distinguished equally from earth and from heaven. The passage may then mean, “Thou shalt not suffer my soul,” when separated from the body, and carried to the place assigned, as other souls are, to continue there as theirs do, but shalt, after a short interval only, reunite it to my body. That this was an opinion general in the Church, is proved, not only by the direct testimony of the Fathers, but by their arguments on the subject in answer to heretics.

They all fully agreed in a real descent of the soul of CHRIST into the place of souls departed; though they differed as to the persons whom he descended to visit, and the end for which he went. Some of them considered Hades, or “hell,” as the common receptacle of souls, both of the just and the unjust, and then thought that the soul of CHRIST went unto those only who had departed in the true faith and fear of GOD. But to this many could not agree, not thinking that Hades could ever, in Scripture, be taken for the place of happiness. And as to the end, those who held the former opinion of the common receptacle, imagined that CHRIST went unto the faithful to dissolve the power by which they were detained, and translate them into heaven. But to this change of place or condition many objected, conceiving that the souls of men shall not enter into heaven till after the general resurrection.

Some there were who, conceiving that this place did not include the blessed, imagined that the object of our LORD’S going into the place of torment, was to deliver some of the suffering souls, and translate them to a place of happiness. That this was done by preaching the gospel to them, that they after death might have an opportunity of receiving him, and then pass with him from death to life.

So that they all imagined that the soul of CHRIST descended into hell to preach the gospel to the spirits there, but differed as to whether it was to those who before believed, that they might now receive him; or to those who had before rejected him, that they might yet believe on him.

But there seem insurmountable objections both to the opinion that he preached to the faithful, for they were not “disobedient,” (as “in the days of Noah,”) nor could they need a publication of the gospel after the death of CHRIST, by virtue of which they were accepted while they lived; and to that, that he preached to the wicked, for they were not proper objects, or likely to be persuaded. The effect too of the preaching may be denied. There is no repentance in the grave, nor any passing the “great gulf” of separation. Again, with respect to the faithful, it is not certain that their souls were in a place where CHRIST would descend; or that they are now in another and better place than they were at first; or that CHRIST did descend into such place for such purpose; or that such effect was produced at such a time.

There is another opinion that has obtained, and perhaps more in our own Church, that CHRIST descended into hell to triumph over Satan and his powers in their own dominions, principally grounded on Col. ii. 11–15; Eph. iv. 8, 9. But these passages are not conclusive; and the argument seems inconsistent in those who object to the opinion, that the souls of the wicked have been released, or those of the saints removed.

The sound conclusion as to the whole, and what our belief might be, is, perhaps, first, as to fact, that the soul of CHRIST, separated from his body by death, did go into the common place of departed spirits, in order that he might appear, both alive and dead, as perfect man. All that was necessary for our redemption, by way of satisfaction, was effected on the cross. The exhibition of what was there merited, was effected by his resurrection; and between these, he satisfied the law of death. Secondly, as to the effect. By the descent of CHRIST into the regions of darkness, the souls of believers are kept from the torments which are there. As the grave and hell had no power over him, the “head,” so neither shall it have over “the members.” By his descent he freed us from all fear, by his resurrection and ascension he has secured our hope; and thus through “death, destroyed him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil.”

As he “was delivered for our offences,” so was he “raised again for our justification.” (Rom. iv. 25.) If this had not taken place, our “faith” would have been “vain;” we should have been “yet in our sins,” (1 Cor. xv. 14, 17,) for as we are “buried with him in baptism, we are quickened together with him,” (Col. ii. 12, 13,) and “begotten again to a lively hope,” by his “resurrection from the dead;” if “by him we believe in GOD that raised him up from the dead,” (1 Pet. i. 3, 21,) and “walk in newness of life.” (Rom. vi. 4; viii. 11; 1 Cor. vi. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 14; Eph. i. 19, 20; Heb. xiii. 20.) Therefore, “on the third day, he rose again from the dead, a living body,” (Luke xxiv. 39; John xx. 20, 27,) “quickened by the spirit,” (1 Pet. iii. 18,) and raised by himself, (John x. 18; ii. 19,) as this was typified in Isaac, “received” again by his father, as “in (or for) a figure,” (Heb. xi. 19,) and by the waved sheaf, the dedicated “first-fruits of the harvest.” (Lev. xxiii. 10, 11.) This, too, on the third day—the “first day of the week,” the Christian “sabbath,” (Matt, xxviii. 1; xx. 19, (thenceforward called “the LORD’S day,” Rev. i. 10,) John xx. 26; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2,) according to the deliverance of his type Jonah. (Matt. xii. 39, 40.) As this was frequently predicted by himself, (Matt. xii. 39, 40, and xvi. 21; xvii. 9; John ii. 19, 21,) confirmed by his enemies, (Matt. xxvi. 61; xxvii. 63; Mark xv. 29,) and by the angel, (Matt. xxviii. 6, 7, 17,) and the truth of it proved also by the precautions of his enemies, (Matt, xxviii. 13–15,) by his showing himself to his disciples several times, and “many days,” (John xx. 19, 26; xxi. 14; Acts xiii. 31,) as to “witnesses chosen before of GOD,” (Acts x. 41,) appointed expressly to bear testimony to this great truth, “unto the uttermost parts of the earth,” (Acts i. 8, 22; ii. 24, 31, 32; iii. 15; iv. 33; v. 32; x. 40; 1 Cor. xv. 15,) as was “also the HOLY GHOST.” (Acts v. 32, and to others, 1 Cor. xv. 4–8.) Which truth, that “GOD hath raised him from the dead,” is to be received by “all men” as an “assurance” that “GOD will judge the world in righteousness by him.” (Acts xvii. 30–32.)

HERESIARCH. A leader in heresy.

HERESY. This word is derived from the Greek, αἵρεσις, _a choice_, and it means an arbitrary adoption, in matters of faith, of opinions at variance with the doctrines delivered by CHRIST and the apostles, and received by the Catholic Church. At the same time we may remark, that it is generally agreed that the opinion must be pertinaciously and obstinately held, in order to constitute formal heresy. And if there be a legitimate doubt in a controversy which of the two contrary doctrines is stated in Scripture and received by the Church, either may be held without heresy. It is obvious, also, that mere ignorance, or a temporary error in ignorance, is altogether different from heresy.

In the first year of Queen Elizabeth, an act of parliament was passed to enable persons to try heretics, and the following directions were given for their guidance:—“And such persons to whom the queen shall by letters patent under the great seal give authority to execute any jurisdiction spiritual, shall not in anywise have power to adjudge any matter or cause to be heresy, but only such as heretofore have been adjudged to be heresy by the authority of the canonical Scriptures, or _by some of the first four general councils_, or by any other general council wherein the same was declared heresy by the express and plain words of the said canonical Scriptures, or such as hereafter shall be judged or determined to be heresy by the high court of parliament, with the assent of the clergy in their convocation.”

Heresies began very early in the Christian Church. Eusebius fixes the beginning of most of them to the reign of the emperor Adrian. And yet it is certain, that Simon Magus had published his errors before that time, and set up a sect, which gave rise to most of the ancient heresies.

The laws, both of the Church and State, were very severe against those who were adjudged to be heretics. Those of the State, made by the Christian emperors from the time of Constantine, are comprised under one title, _De Hæreticis_, in the Theodosian Code. The principal of them are, 1. The general note of infamy affixed to all heretics in common. 2. All commerce forbidden to be held with them. 3. The depriving them of all offices of profit and dignity. 4. The disqualifying them to dispose of their estates by will, or receive estates from others. 5. The imposing on them pecuniary mulcts. 6. The proscribing and banishing them. 7. The inflicting corporal punishment on them, such as scourging, &c., before banishment. Besides these laws, which chiefly affected the persons of heretics, there were several others, which tended to the extirpation of heresy: such as, 1. Those which forbade heretical teachers to propagate their doctrines publicly or privately. 2. Those which forbade heretics to hold public disputations. 3. Such laws as prohibited all heretical meetings and assemblies. 4. Those which deny to the children of heretical parents their patrimony and inheritance, unless they return to the Church. And, 5. Such laws as ordered the books of heretics to be burned. There were many other penal laws made against heretics, from the time of Constantine to Theodosius _junior_ and Valentinian III. But the few already mentioned may be sufficient to give an idea of the rigour with which the empire treated such persons as held, or taught, opinions contrary to the faith of the Catholic Church, whose discipline towards heretics was no less severe than the civil laws.

For, 1. The Church was accustomed to pronounce a formal _anathema_ or excommunication against them. Thus the Council of Nice ends her creed with an anathema against all those who opposed the doctrine there delivered. And there are innumerable instances of this kind to be found in the volumes of the _Councils_. 2. Some canons debarred them from the very lowest privileges of Church communion, forbidding them to enter into the church, so much as to hear the sermon, or the Scriptures read in the service of the catechumens. But this was no general rule; for liberty was often granted to heretics to be present at the sermons, in hopes of their conversion; and the historians tell us, that Chrysostom by this means brought over many to acknowledge the Divinity of CHRIST, whilst they had liberty to come and hear his sermons. 3. The Church prohibited all persons, under pain of excommunication, to join with heretics in any religious offices. 4. By the laws of the Church, no one was to eat, or converse familiarly with heretics; or to read their writings, or to contract any affinity with them: their names were to be struck out of the Diptychs, or sacred registers of the Church; and, if they died in heresy, no psalmody, or other solemnity, was to be used at their funeral. 5. The testimony of heretics was not to be taken in any ecclesiastical cause whatever. These are the chief ecclesiastical laws against heretics.

As to the terms of penance imposed upon relenting heretics, or such as were willing to renounce their errors, and be reconciled to the Church, they were various, and differed according to the canons of different councils, or the usages of different Churches. The Council of Eliberis (soon after A. D. 300) appoints ten years’ penance, before repenting heretics are admitted to communion. The Council of Agde (A. D. 506) contracted this term into that of three years. The Council of Epone (A. D. 517) reduced it to two years only.

The ancient Christian Church made a distinction between such heretics as contumaciously resisted the admonitions of the Church, and such as never had any admonition given them, for none were reputed formal heretics, or treated as such, till the Church had given them a first and second admonition, according to the apostle’s rule.

The principal sects of heretics, which disturbed the peace of the Church, sprung up in the first _six_ centuries: most of the heresies, in after ages, being nothing but the old ones new vamped, or revived. The following table may serve to give the reader a compendious view of the most remarkable of the ancient heresies.

CENTURY I.

1. The _Simonians_, or followers of Simon Magus; who maintained that the world was created by angels; that there is no resurrection of the body; that women ought to be in common, &c.

2. _Cerinthians_ and _Ebionites_, followers of Cerinthus and Ebion; who denied the Divinity of our SAVIOUR, and blended the Mosaical ceremonies with Christianity, &c.

3. The _Nicolaites_, followers of Nicolas, deacon of Antioch; who allowed the promiscuous use of women, &c., alluded to by St. John in Rev. ii. 6, 15.

CENTURY II.

4. The _Basilidians_, followers of Basilides of Alexandria; who espoused the heresies of Simon Magus, and denied the reality of our SAVIOUR’S crucifixion, &c.

5. The _Carpocratians_, followers of Carpocrates; who, besides adhering to the heresies of Simon Magus, rejected the Old Testament, and held that our SAVIOUR was but a mere man, &c.

6. The _Valentinians_, followers of Valentinus; who corrupted the Christian doctrine with the Pythagorean and Platonic notions, &c.

7. The _Gnostics_; so called from their pretences to superior _knowledge_. The term _Gnostics_ seems to have been a general name for many of the earliest heretics. (See _Gnostics_.)

8. The _Nazarenes_; who ingrafted the law of Moses on Christianity, &c.

9. The _Millenarians_ or _Chiliasts_; so called, because they expected to reign with CHRIST, a thousand years, upon the earth.

10. The _Cainites_; a branch of the Valentinians, but particularly remarkable for paying a great regard to _Cain_ and all the wicked men mentioned in the Scripture, &c.

11. The _Sethians_; who held that Seth, the son of Adam, was the Messiah.

12. The _Quartodecimans_; who observed Easter on the fourteenth day of the first month, in conformity to the Jewish custom of keeping the Passover.

13. The _Cerdonians_, followers of Cerdon; who held two contrary principles, denied the resurrection of the body, and threw the Four Gospels out of the canon of Scripture.

14. The _Marcionites_, followers of Marcion; who held three principles, denied the resurrection of the body, and declaimed against marriage, &c.

15. The _Cataphrygians_, or _Montanists_; who baptized the dead, and held Montanus to be the HOLY GHOST, &c.

16. The _Encratites_, or _Tatianists_, followers of Tatian; who boasted of an extraordinary continency, and condemned marriage, &c.

17. The _Alogians_; so called, because they denied the Divinity of the _Word_, and rejected St. John’s Gospel, which particularly asserts it.

18. The _Artotyrites_; so called, because they offered bread and cheese in the eucharist.

19. The _Angelics_; so called, because they worshipped angels.

CENTURY III.

20. The _Monarchici_, or _Patripassians_, followers of Praxeas; who denied a plurality of persons in the Trinity, and affirmed that our SAVIOUR was GOD the Father.

21. The _Arabici_; who believed that the soul dies, or sleeps, till the day of judgment, and then rises with the body.

22. The _Aquarians_; who used only water in the eucharist.

23. The _Novatians_; who would not allow those, who had lapsed in time of persecution, to be restored, upon repentance, to communion.

24. The _Origenists_, followers of Origen; who, among other things, held that the devil, and all the damned, will at last be saved.

25. The _Melchisedechians_: who held Melchisedech to be the Messiah.

26. The _Sabellians_, followers of Sabellius; who denied the Trinity, and affirmed that the distinction of persons in the GODHEAD was merely nominal, and founded only upon a diversity of attributes, &c.

27. The _Manicheans_, followers of Manes; who held that two opposite principles reigned over the world, the one good, the other bad, &c.

CENTURY IV.

28. The _Arians_, followers of Arius, a priest of Alexandria; who believed the FATHER and the SON not to be of the same nature, substance, or essence, and that there was a time when the SON was not, &c.

29. The _Colluthians_, followers of Colluthus; who confounded the evil of punishment with the evil of sin.

30. The _Macedonians_; who denied the Divinity of the HOLY GHOST.

31. The _Agnoëtæ_; so called, because they denied the certainty of the Divine prescience.

32. The _Apollinarians_, followers of Apollinaris; who asserted that our SAVIOUR, at his incarnation, assumed a human body without a soul, and that the _Word_ supplied the place of a soul, &c.

33. The _Timotheans_; who held, that our SAVIOUR was incarnate only for the benefit and advantage of our bodies.

34. The _Collyridians_; so called, because they made a kind of goddess of the Blessed Virgin, and offered _cakes_ to her.

35. The _Seleucians_, followers of Seleucus; who held that the Deity was corporeal; and that the matter of the universe was co-eternal with GOD.

36. The _Priscillianists_, followers of Priscillian, a Spanish bishop; who held all the errors of the Gnostics and Valentinians.

37. The _Anthropomorphites_; so called, because they ascribed a body to GOD, understanding literally those passages of Scripture which speak of GOD as having hands, eyes, feet, &c.

38. The _Jovinianists_, followers of Jovinian; who denied the virginity of Mary.

39. The _Messalians_; who chiefly pretended to prophecy.

40. The _Bonosians_, followers of Bonosus; who held that JESUS CHRIST was the Son of GOD only by adoption.

CENTURY V.

41. The _Pelagians_, followers of Pelagius; who denied the necessity of Divine grace, in order to salvation, &c.

42. _Nestorians_, followers of Nestorius; who distinguished our blessed SAVIOUR into two persons, the one Divine, the other human.

43. The _Eutychians_, followers of Eutyches; who fell into the opposite error, and held, that there was but one nature in JESUS CHRIST.

44. The _Theopaschites_, followers of Petrus Fullo, bishop of Antioch; so called, because they affirmed that all the three persons in the Trinity were incarnate, and suffered upon the cross.

CENTURY VI.

45. The _Predestinarians_; so called, because they held that the salvation or damnation of men is pre-ordained, and that no man is saved or damned by his works.

46. The _Apthartodocetes_, or _Incorruptibilists_; so called, because they held that our SAVIOUR’S body was incorruptible, and exempt from passion.

47. A second sect of _Agnoëtæ_; so called, because they held that our blessed SAVIOUR, when upon earth, did not know the day of judgment.

48. The _Monotheletes_; who held that there was but one will in JESUS CHRIST.

These were the principal sects of heretics, which, in those early ages, infested the Christian Church. The succeeding ages produced a great variety of heretics likewise; as the _Gnosimachi_ and _Lampetians_, in the seventh century; the _Agonyclites_ in the eighth; the _Berengarians_, _Simoniacs_, and _Vecilians_, in the eleventh; the _Bogomiles_, in the twelfth; the _Fratricelli_ and _Beguards_, in the thirteenth; to enumerate all which would be both tedious and uninteresting.—_Broughton._

HERETIC. Dr. Johnson, in his dictionary, defines a heretic to be, “one who propagates his private opinions in opposition to the Catholic Church;” and the Catholic or universal Church, in the second general council, has pronounced those to be heretics “who, while they pretend to confess the sound faith, have separated and held meetings contrary to our canonical bishops.”—_Conc. Const._ Can. 6.

A man may be erroneous in doctrine and yet not a heretic; for heresy is a pertinacious adherence to an opinion when it is known that the Church has condemned it. (See the preceding article.)

Although the Scripture only is our guide, there are certain points of disputable doctrine on which the Church Universal has decided, e. g. the doctrine of the Trinity; and he who refuses “to hear the Church” on these points, is held a heretic by the Church Universal. There are certain points on which our own Church has decided, e. g. the doctrine of transubstantiation, and he who holds this doctrine is regarded as a heretic by the Church of England. For those who do not defer to the Church, to pronounce any one a heretic who professes to take the Bible for his guide, is an inconsistency which can only be accounted for by the existence, on the part of the offender, of a very intolerant and tyrannical disposition.

HERMENEUTÆ. (From ἑρμηνεύω, _to interpret_.) Persons in the ancient Church, whose business it was to render one language into another, as there was occasion, both in reading the Scriptures, and in the homilies that were made to the people; an office which was very important in those churches where the people spoke different languages, as in Palestine, where some spoke Syriac, others Greek; and in Africa, where some spoke the Latin, and others the Punic tongue.

HERMENEUTICS. (From ἑρμηνεύω, _to interpret_.) The principles and practice of translation and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures.—See _Hartwell Horne’s Introduction_ and _Ernesti’s Institutes_.

HERMITAGES were cells constructed in private and solitary places, for single persons, or for small communities, and were sometimes annexed to larger religious houses.

HETERODOX. Contrary to the faith or doctrine established in the true Church.

HEXAPLA. A book containing the Hebrew text of the Bible, written in Hebrew and Greek characters, with the translations of the Septuagint, of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, in _six_ several columns. There was added to it a fifth translation, found at Jericho, without the author’s name; and a sixth, named Nicopolitanum, because found at Nicopolis: Origen joined to it a translation of the Psalms, but still the book retained the name of _Hexapla_, because the fifth and sixth translations did not extend to the whole Bible; and so the same book of Origen had but six columns in divers places, eight in some, and nine in the Psalms. Others are of opinion that the two columns of the Hebrew text were not reckoned; and that the translation of the Psalms was not to be considered so as to give a new name to the book. When the edition contained only the translations of the Septuagint, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, it was called _Tetrapla_, and the name of _Octapla_ was sometimes given to the eight versions, that is, to the collections containing the translations of Jericho and Nicopolis. Ruffinus, speaking of this elaborate work, affirms that Origen undertook it because of the continual controversies between the Jews and Christians: the Jews citing the Hebrew, and the Christians the Septuagint, in their disputes, this father was willing to let the Christians understand how the Jews read the Bible; and to this end, he laid the versions of Aquila, and some other Greek translations, before them, which had been made from the Hebrew; but few people being able to buy so great a work, Origen undertook to abridge it, and for that purpose published a version of the Septuagint, to which he added some supplements, taken out of Theodotion’s translation, in the places where the Septuagint had not rendered the Hebrew text; and which supplements were marked with an asterisk. He added also a small line like a spit, where the Septuagint had something that was not in the Hebrew text. The loss of the Hexapla is one of the greatest which the Church has sustained. But a few fragments remain, published by Montfauçon, in 1713; and by Bahrdt, (an abridgment, and not a very skilful one, of the former,) in 1769.

HIERARCHY. (See _Bishops_.) A designation equally applied to the ranks of celestial beings in the Jerusalem above, and to the apostolic order of the ministry in the Church below. In reference to the latter, it is an error to suppose that it necessarily implies temporal distinction, wealth, splendour, or any other adjuncts with which the ministry may, in certain times and countries, have been distinguished. These are mere accidents, which prejudice has identified with the being of a hierarchy, but from which no just inference can be drawn against the inherent spiritual dignity of the Christian priesthood.

HIGH PRIEST. The highest person in the divinely appointed ecclesiastical polity of the Jews. To him in the Christian Church answers the bishop, the presbyter answering to the priest, and the deacon to the Levite.

HISTORIANS, ECCLESIASTICAL. Those writers who record the acts and monuments of the Christian Church. After the evangelical historians, the most distinguished is Hegesippus, who lived principally in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (A. D. 161–180). He wrote five books of ecclesiastical history, called _Commentaries of the Acts of the Church_, wherein he described the character of the holy apostles, their missions, &c., the remarkable events in the Church, and the several heresies, schisms, and persecutions which had afflicted it from our LORD’S death to the writer’s own times. All the writings of Hegesippus are now lost. Next follows Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, a pupil of Pamphilus, on which account he is often called Eusebius Pamphili. He wrote an ecclesiastical history in ten books, comprising a history of the Church from our LORD’S birth to the conversion of Constantine the Great, which he compiled chiefly from the commentary of Hegesippus. St. Jerome and Nicephorus derive the materials of their history from Eusebius. The histories written by Socrates, Theodoret, and Sozomen, relate to their own times only. These are the sources from which all modern historians of the early Church derive their materials.

HOLY-DAY. The day of some ecclesiastical festival. The rubric after the Nicene Creed directs that “the curate shall _then_ declare to the people what holy-days or fasting days are in the week following to be observed.”

Canon 64. “Every parson, vicar, or curate shall, in his several charge, declare to the people every Sunday, at the time appointed in the Communion Book, whether there be any holy-days or fasting days the week following. And if any do hereafter willingly offend herein, and, being once admonished thereof by his ordinary, shall again omit that duty, let him be censured according to law until he submit himself to the due performance of it.”

Canon 13. “All manner of persons within the Church of England shall from henceforth celebrate and keep the LORD’S day, commonly called Sunday, and other holy-days, according to GOD’S will and pleasure, and the orders of the Church of England prescribed on that behalf: that is, in hearing the word of GOD read and taught, in private and public prayers, in acknowledging their offences to GOD, and amendment of the same, in reconciling themselves charitably to their neighbours where displeasure has often been, in oftentimes receiving the communion of the body and blood of CHRIST, in visiting of the poor and sick, using all godly and sober conversation.”

Canon 14. “The Common Prayer shall be said or sung distinctly and reverently upon such days as are appointed to be kept holy by the Book of Common Prayer, and their eves.”

HOLY GHOST. (See _Procession_.) The third Person of the adorable Trinity.

“The HOLY GHOST, proceeding from the FATHER and the SON, is of one substance, majesty, and glory with the FATHER and the SON, very and eternal GOD.”—_Article_ V.

The name _Ghost_, or _Gast_, in the ancient Saxon, signifies _a spirit_, to which the word _holy_ is applied, as signifying a communication of the Divine holiness. Having been baptized “in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST,” we cannot say with the ignorant disciples, that “we have not so much as heard whether there be any HOLY GHOST” (Acts xix. 2); we are therefore called upon to believe in the HOLY GHOST as we do in the FATHER and the SON; and for our authority in considering him to be a person as well as the others, we have not only the analogy of faith, but sufficient evidence in holy writ.

First, he is plainly distinguishable from the others; from the FATHER, as proceeding from him, (John xv. 26,) and from the FATHER and the SON, in being sent by one from the other; “The Comforter, whom I,” says our LORD, “will send unto you from the FATHER;” “If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” (John xv. 26; xvi. 7.) This was the SPIRIT promised before of the FATHER. (Isa. xliv. 3; Ezek. xxxvi. 25, with John xiv. 16; Acts i. 4; ii. 33.) He is sometimes termed “the SPIRIT of the SON,” as well as of the FATHER, (Gal. iv. 6,) and is given by the FATHER, (Eph. i. 17,) and sent in his SON’S name, (John xiv. 26,) as at other times by the SON. (John xv. 26; xvi. 7; xx. 21, 22.)

Secondly, such properties, attributes, and acts are ascribed to him as are only applicable to a person. He is spoken of in formal opposition to evil spirits, who are clearly represented as persons (1 Sam. xvi. 14; 2 Chron. xviii. 20, 21); and if expressions are used not exactly suitable to our conceptions of a person, this may well be allowed without its making him a mere quality or attribute. When GOD is said to “give” the HOLY GHOST “to them that obey him,” (Acts v. 32,) it may be compared with similar passages respecting the SON: “GOD so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten SON,” &c., (John iii. 16,) in conformity to the prophecy, “Unto us a SON is given.” (Isa. ix. 6.)

Thirdly, he is also truly GOD, as is proved from the titles given to him by fair implication, (Acts v. 3, 4; Luke i. 35; and see 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3,) and the attributes of GOD, (Job xxxiii. 4; Ps. cxxxix. 7; Isa. xlviii. 16; with Acts xiii. 2; xx. 28; Mark xiii. 11; Rom. viii. 14; xv. 13, 19; 1 Cor. ii. 11,) and he is in two grand instances united to the FATHER and the SON, in perfect equality,—the form of baptism, by which we are admitted into the Church of GOD, (Matt. xxviii. 19,) and the apostolic benediction, the common Christian salutation. (2 Cor. xiii. 14.)