Chapter XXXVIII: Act 46: , Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, King James VI., do (14)

As he is the HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD, “the SPIRIT of holiness,” (Rom. i. 4,) so is he the cause of all holiness in man. That as the SON, by his sacrifice, put us in the way of salvation, (John iii. 16,) so must the HOLY SPIRIT co-operate in sealing “us unto the day of redemption,” through his “sanctification,” and “belief of the truth,” (Rom. viii. 16; 2 Cor. i. 22; v. 5; Gal. vi. 8; Eph. i. 13, 14; iv. 30; Phil. i. 19; 2 Thess. ii. 13; Tit. iii. 5,) according as he has been promised. (Deut. xxix. 4; Jer. xxxii. 40; Ezek. xxxvi. 27; John vi. 44.) And this he does by regenerating us at baptism, (Matt. iii. 11; John iii. 5; Gal. iv. 29; Tit. iii. 5,) and making us the “sons of GOD,” (Rom. viii. 14–16; Gal. iv. 6,) and thus uniting us to our “head,” (1 Cor. vi. 17; xii. 12, 13; Eph. iv. 4; 1 John iii. 24,) and by instructing us in our duty, (Prov. i. 23; Ps. clxiii. 10; Isa. lix. 21: 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11; xii. 3; 2 Cor. iii. 3; Gal. v. 16, 25,) illuminating the understanding, (Neh. ix. 20; Isa. xxxii. 15, 16; Ezek, xxxvi. 27; Micah iii. 8; Rom. viii. 2, 5; Eph. i. 17, 18; 1 John iii. 24; iv. 13,) disposing the will, (Heb. iii. 7, 8; 1 Pet. i. 2, 22,) settling us in the faith and love of GOD, (Rom. v. 5; 2 Cor. iv. 13; 2 Tim. i. 7,) giving us power to obey, (Zech. iv. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 17; Eph. iii. 16,) helping us in prayer, (Zech. xii. 10; Rom. viii. 26; 1 Cor. xiv. 15; Jude 20,) and sanctifying us. (Rom. xv. 16; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Gal. v. 16.) And as his very name, “the Comforter,” implies, he gives consolation and joy. (Acts ix. 31; Rom. xiv. 17; xv. 13; Gal. v. 22; 1 Thess. i. 6.)

It is necessary, then, that we believe in the HOLY GHOST, as having been baptized to GOD in his name; and as we would receive the apostolic benediction, (2 Cor. xiii. 14; Phil. ii. 1,) and enjoy the kingdom of GOD on earth, which is “righteousness, and peace, and joy,” in him. (Rom. xiv. 17; Acts xiii. 52.)

HOLY TABLE, (ἅγια τράπεζα.) (See _Altar_.) The altar on which the appointed memorials of the death of CHRIST, namely, the bread and wine, are presented before GOD, as an oblation of thanksgiving, is called the LORD’S table, or the holy table; because his worshippers do there, as his guests, eat and drink these consecrated elements, in faith, to be thereby fed and nourished unto eternal life, by the spiritual food of his most precious body and blood.

HOLY THURSDAY. The day of our LORD’S ascension. (See _Ascension Day_.)

HOLY WATER. In the Romish Church, water blessed with an appropriate service by the priest, and placed in a shallow basin, called the holy water stoup, at the entrance of the Church. Its primary use was, that the hands of the worshippers might be washed, and “pure hands lifted up in prayer;” afterwards it _symbolized_ their purification from defilement _before_ engaging in prayer. The modern Romanists forget this, and, as if they thought that some intrinsic benefit resulted from the physical application of the holy water, independent of its mystic meaning, use it both on entering and _leaving_ a church.

So many superstitions had become connected with the use of holy water, that it was discontinued at the Reformation.

HOLY WEEK. (See _Passion Week_.) The Passion week—the last week in Lent, in which the Church commemorates the cross and passion of our blessed and only SAVIOUR.

HOMILIES. (From ὁμιλία, a _sermon_ or _discourse_, delivered in a plain manner, so as to be understood by the common people.) The Homilies of the Church of England are two books of plain discourses, composed at the time of the Reformation, and appointed to be read in churches, on “any Sunday or holy-day, when there is no sermon.” The first volume of them was set out in the beginning of King Edward the Sixth’s reign in 1547, having been composed (as it is thought) by Archbishop Cranmer and Bishops Ridley and Latimer, when a competent number of ministers of sufficient abilities to preach in a public congregation was not to be found. It was reprinted in 1560. The second book appeared in 1563, having been printed the year before, (see _Strype’s Life of Parker_,) in the reign of Elizabeth. Bishop Jewell is supposed to have had a great share in its composition. In the first book, the homily on “Salvation” was probably written by Cranmer, as also those on “Faith” and “Good Works.” The homilies on the “Fear of Death,” and on the “Reading of Scripture,” have likewise been ascribed to the archbishop. That on the “Misery of Mankind,” which has sometimes been attributed to him, appears in Bishop Bonner’s volume of Homilies, A. D. 1555, with the name of “Jo. Harpesfield” attached to it. The homilies on “the Passion,” and on “the Resurrection,” are from Taverner’s “Postills,” published in 1540. Internal evidence arising out of certain homely expressions, and peculiar forms of ejaculation, the like to which appear in Latimer’s sermons, pretty clearly betray the hand of the Bishop of Worcester to have been engaged in the homily against “Brawling and Contention;” the one against “Adultery” may be safely given to Thomas Becon, one of Cranmer’s chaplains, in whose works, published in 1564, it is still to be found; of the rest nothing is known, but by the merest conjecture. In the second book, no single homily of them all has been appropriated.

All members of the Church of England agree that the Homilies “contain a godly and wholesome doctrine;” but they are not agreed as to the precise _degree_ of authority to be attached to them. In them the authority of the Fathers, of the first six general Councils, and of the judgments of the Church generally, the holiness of the primitive Church, the secondary inspiration of the Apocrypha, the sacramental character of marriage and other ordinances, regeneration in holy baptism, and the real presence in the eucharist, are asserted. To some of these assertions ultra-Protestants of course demur.

By this approbation of the two books of Homilies it is not meant that every passage of Scripture, or argument that is made use of in them, is always convincing; or that every expression is so severely worded, that it may not need a little correction or explanation: all that we profess about them is only that they “contain a godly and wholesome doctrine.” This rather relates to the main importance and design of them, than to every passage in them. Though this may be said concerning them, that, considering the age wherein they were written, the imperfection of our language, and some inferior defects, they are two very extraordinary books. Some of them are better writ than others, and are equal to anything that has been writ upon those subjects since that time. Upon the whole matter, every one, who subscribes the Articles, ought to read them, otherwise he subscribes a blank; he approves a book implicitly, and binds himself to read it, as he may be required, without knowing anything concerning it. This approbation is not to be stretched so far, as to carry in it a special assent to every particular in that whole volume: but a man must be persuaded of the main of the doctrine that is taught in them.—_Bp. Burnet._

The Church requires our assent and approbation to the Articles, and so in like manner to the Rubric, to be expressed in a different degree and manner from that in which we express our assent to the Homilies and the Canons; the same degree of preference being given to the Articles of religion before the Homilies, in point of doctrine, and to the Rubric before the body of Canons, in point of practice.

The Thirty-nine Articles, for instance, being the capital rule of our doctrine, as we are teachers in this Church; (they being this Church’s interpretation of the word of GOD in Scripture, so far as they go;) and designed as a bulwark against Popery and fanaticism; we are bound to a very full and explicit acknowledgment under our hands, that we do deliberately, and advisedly, and _ex animo_, assent to every part and proposition contained in them. For this everybody knows to be the meaning of clerical subscriptions, both before ordination, and as often as the three articles of the thirty-sixth canon are subscribed by us.

In the like manner the Rubric being the standard of uniformity of worship in our communion; the adding to which tends towards opening a gap to Popish superstitions, and the increase of human inventions in the service of GOD; and the subtracting from which tends towards paving a way to a fanatical disuse and contempt of rites and ceremonies; therefore we are obliged, not only to declare our _ex animo_ approbation, assent, and consent, to the matter of the Rubric, but are laid under religious promises, that we will in every particular, prescribed in and by it, conform ourselves to it as the rule of our ministration.

And, indeed, considering that both the Articles and the Rubric are statute as well as canon law, and have equally the sanction and authority both of the temporal and spiritual legislatures; and considering the condition upon which we are admitted to minister in this established Church, which is our solemn reception of them both as our rule; I do not see how any man can, with a good conscience, continue acting as a minister of our Church, who can allow himself either to depart from her doctrine as expressed in her Articles, or from her rites and ceremonies as prescribed in the Service Book. Wherefore it is not without reason that the thirty-eighth canon, which is entitled “Revolters after subscription censured,” expressly denounces, that “if any minister, after having subscribed the three articles of the 36th canon, shall omit to use any of the orders and ceremonies prescribed in the Communion Book, he shall be suspended; and if after one month he reform not, he shall be excommunicated; and if after the space of another month he submit not himself, he shall be deposed from the ministry.”

But the case of Homilies and Canons is different from that of the Articles and Rubric. They are indeed equally set forth by authority. The one is as truly the doctrine, and the other is as truly the law, of the Church. But still the regard that we are supposed to pay to them is not equally the same. For, though we subscribe to the Homilies, yet this subscription amounts to no more than our acknowledgment, that “they contain a godly and wholesome doctrine necessary for the times they were written in, and fitting to be publicly taught unto the people;” and not that we will maintain every particular doctrine, or argument, or assertion, contained in them.

In like manner we say as to the Canons. “We receive them in general as a good body of ecclesiastical laws. We acknowledge the wholesomeness and fitness of them all for discipline, and order, and edification, and proper in every respect for the times in which they were drawn up. But we do not look upon every particular thereby enjoined as absolutely and indispensably requisite to be practised now by us in the manner it is enjoined, any more than we hold our approbation of every sentence or expression in the Book of Homilies to be necessary.—_Archdeacon Sharp._

Were I asked the question, whether the clergymen of the Church of England subscribe to the doctrines of the Homilies, as well as to the Articles of Religion, I should, in sincerity and truth, be obliged to reply, most undoubtedly _not_. Neither at ordination, nor upon collation or institution to benefices, nor at any other period, is any such subscription required of the clergy. We cannot help remarking a broad distinction in the degree of authority attributed by our Church, to the Liturgy, the Articles, and the Books of Homilies, respectively. To the Liturgy, all beneficed clergymen are bound, within a limited period after institution or collation, open and publicly, before the congregation to which they have been appointed ministers, to declare their unfeigned assent and consent. To the Articles, the clergy are obliged, at various times, and on different occasions, solemnly to subscribe. But, however venerable and valuable the Homilies unquestionably are, we do not find them treated with any such distinction; and, by the simple fact, that no provision is made for their being signed, subscribed, or solemnly assented to, they are placed in an immeasurably lower grade than the other formularies. It is, indeed, asserted in the thirty-fifth Article, that “the Second Book of Homilies doth contain a goodly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times,” [the times in which it was prepared and published,] “as doth the former Book of Homilies:”—and, in subscribing to the Articles, every clergyman admits the truth of this assertion. But the assertion itself is both limited and guarded, and is very different from that full assurance and conviction expressed by the Church, and demanded of her ministers, respecting both our Articles and Liturgy.... I conceive the framers of our Articles merely to have asserted, that the Homilies, generally speaking, contained religious and moral instruction, good, and salutary, and necessary to be so administered under the peculiar circumstance of their own times.—_Bishop Jebb: the Homilies considered._

It seems the author of the Homilies wrote them in haste, and the Church did wisely to reserve this authority of correcting and setting forth others. (See _Rubric before Offertory_.) For they have many scapes in them in special, although they contain in general many wholesome lessons for the people; in which sense our ministers do subscribe unto them, and no other.—_Bp. Overall._

The authors of several of the Homilies are mentioned in Corry’s recent edition of them, who also shows how they were intended to bear upon the Antinomian as well as the Popish errors of the day.

HOMOIOUSIANS. Semi-Arians, who held that the nature of GOD the SON, though not the same, was similar to that of GOD the _Father_.

HOMOOUSIANS. A name given by Arians to Catholic Christians, for holding the doctrine of the Homoousion.

HOMOOUSION. (See _Trinity_.) This is the critical word of the Nicene Creed, and is used to express the real Divinity of CHRIST, and that, as derived from, and one with, the FATHER. The word was adopted from the necessity of the case, in a sense different from the ordinary philosophical use of it. Ὁμοούσιος properly means of the same nature, i. e. under the same general nature, or species; i. e. is applied to things which are but similar to each other, and are considered as one by an abstraction of our minds. Thus Aristotle speaks of the stars being ὁμοούσια with each other; and Porphyry, of the souls of brute animals being ὁμοούσιαι to ours. When, however, it was used in relation to the incommunicable essence of GOD, there was obviously no abstraction possible in contemplating him, who is above all comparison with his works. His nature is solitary, peculiar to himself, and one; so that, whatever was accounted to be ὁμοούσιος with him, was necessarily included in his individuality by all who would avoid recurring to the vagueness of philosophy, and were cautious to distinguish between the incommunicable essence of Jehovah and all created intelligences. And hence the fitness of the term to denote without metaphor the relation which the Logos bore in the orthodox creed to his eternal FATHER. Its use is explained by Athanasius as follows: “Though,” he says, “we cannot understand what is meant by the οὐσία of GOD, yet we know as much as this, that God exists (εῖναι), which is the way in which Scripture speaks of him; and after this pattern, when we wish to designate him distinctly, we say GOD, FATHER, LORD. When then he says in Scripture, ‘I am ὁ ὤν,’ and ‘I am Jehovah, GOD,’ or uses the plain word ‘GOD,’ we understand by such statements nothing but his incomprehensible οὐσία, and that he, who is there spoken of, exists (ἐστίν). Let no one then think it strange, that the SON of GOD should be said to be ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, of the substance of GOD; rather, let him agree to the explanation of the Nicene fathers, who, for the words ἐκ Θεοῦ, substituted the ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας. They considered the two phrases substantially the same, because, as we have said, the word GOD denotes nothing but the οὐσία αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντος. On the other hand, if the word be not in such sense ἔκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, as to be the true SON of the FATHER according to his nature, but be said to be ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, merely as all creatures are such as being his work, then indeed he is not ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός, nor SON κατ’ ὑσίαν, but so called from his virtue, as we may be who receive the title from grace.

Bishop Bull says that ὁμοούσιος is used by standard Greek writers to signify that which is of the same substance, essence, or nature. And he shows at large that the term was not invented by the Nicene Fathers, but was known in its present theological acceptation long before; by Irenæus, by Origen, (as Dionysius of Alexandria and Athanasius testify,) by Gregory Thaumaturgus, &c. See the 2nd section of that exhaustive and irrefragable treatise, the Defensio Fidei Nicænæ. See also _Suicer_ in voc., from which it appears that the ante-Nicene fathers defined the word as signifying “that which is of the same nature, essence, eternity, and energy,” without any difference.

HOOD. The hood as used by us, is partly derived from the monastic _caputium_, partly from the canonical _amice_, or _almutium_. It was formerly used by the laity as well as the clergy, and by the monastic orders. In cathedral and collegiate churches, the hoods of the canons and prebendaries were frequently lined with fur or wool, and always worn in the choir. The term _almutium_, or _amice_, was peculiarly applied to these last. And such is the present usage in foreign churches, where the capitular canons are generally distinguished from the inferior members, by the colour or materials of the almuce. (See _Amice_.)—_Palmer._

As used in England and Ireland, it is an ornamental fold that hangs down the back of a graduate to mark his degree. This part of the dress was formerly not intended for distinction and ornament, but for use. It was generally fastened to the back of the cope or other vesture, and in case of rain or cold was drawn over the head. In the universities the hoods of the graduates were made to signify their degrees by varying the colours and materials. The hoods at our three principal universities, Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, vary considerably from one another: with this agreement, that all Doctors are distinguished by a scarlet hood, the linings (at Oxford and Dublin) varying according to the different faculties. Originally however it would appear that they were the same, probably till after the Restoration. Masters of Arts had originally fur hoods, like the proctors at Oxford, whose dress is in fact that of full costume of a Master of Arts; Bachelors in other faculties wore silk hoods of some intermediate colour; and Bachelors of Arts stuff hoods lined with lambs’ wool. The hoods in the Scottish universities followed the pattern of those of the university of Paris.—_Jebb._

By the 58th canon, every minister saying the public prayers, or ministering the sacraments, or other rites of the Church, if they are graduates, shall wear upon their surplice, at such times, such hoods as by the orders of the universities are agreeable to their degrees.

HOSANNA, signifies as much as _Save now_. The Jews call their feast of Tabernacles, _Hosanna Rabba_, i. e. the great Hosanna; the origin of that word is, because on that day they prayed for the salvation and forgiveness of all the sins of the people. Therefore they used the word Hosanna in all their prayers; which implies, _Save, I pray_, according to Buxtorf; but Anthony Nebrissensis observes after Rabbi Elias, that the Jews call the willow branches, which they carry at the feast, Hosanna, because they sing Hosanna, shaking them everywhere. And Grotius observes, that the feasts of the Jews did not only signify their going out of Egypt, the memory of which they celebrated, but also the expectation of the MESSIAS: and that still on the day when they carry those branches, they wished to celebrate that feast at the coming of the MESSIAS; from whence he concludes, that the people carrying those branches before our SAVIOUR, showed their joy, acknowledging him to be the MESSIAS.

HOSPITALS, were houses for the relief of poor and impotent persons, and were generally incorporated by royal patents, and made capable of gifts and grants in succession. Some of these in England are very noble foundations, as St. Cross at Winchester, founded in the reign of King Stephen, &c. In most cathedral towns there are hospitals, often connected with the cathedrals. Christ’s Hospital in London was one of those many excellent endowments, to which the funds of alienated monasteries would have been more largely directed, had secular avarice permitted.

HOSPITALLERS, or Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. Knights who took their name from an hospital built in Jerusalem for the use of pilgrims coming to the Holy Land. They were to provide for such pilgrims, and to protect them on the road. They came to England in the year 1100, and here they arrived to such power that their superior had a seat in the House of Lords, and ranked as the first lay baron.

HOSPITIUM, or _Domus Hospitium_. In ancient monasteries, the place where pilgrims and other strangers were received and entertained.

HOST. (See _Transubstantiation_.) From _hostia_, a victim. The bread used by the Roman Catholic Church in the celebration of the eucharist. It is unleavened, thin, flat, and of circular form, and has certain mystic signs impressed on it. Romanists worship the host, under a false presumption that the elements are no longer bread and wine, but transubstantiated into the real body and blood of CHRIST.

HOSTIARIUS. (See _Ostiarius_.) The second master in some of the old endowed schools, as Winchester, is so called. Hence _usher_.

HOUR GLASS. The usual length of sermons in the English Church, from the Reformation till the latter part of the seventeenth century, was an hour. Puritans preached much longer—two, three, and even four hours. For the measurement of the time of sermon, hour glasses were frequently attached to pulpits, and in some churches the stand for the glass, if not the instrument itself, still remains.

HOURS OF PRAYER. The Church of England, at the revision of our offices in the reign of Edward VI., only prescribed public worship in the morning and evening: and in making this regulation she was perfectly justified: for though it is the duty of Christians to pray continually, yet the precise times and seasons of prayer, termed Canonical Hours, do not rest on any Divine command; neither have they ever been pronounced binding on all Churches by any general council; neither has there been any uniformity in the practice of the Christian Church in this respect. The hours of prayer before the Reformation were seven in number,—matins, the first, third, sixth, and ninth hours, vespers, and compline. The office of matins, or morning prayer, according to the Church of England, is a judicious abridgment of her ancient services for matins, lauds, and prime; and the office of even-song, or evening prayer, in like manner, is an abridgment of the ancient service for vespers and compline. Both these offices have received several improvements in imitation of the ancient discipline of the Churches of Egypt, Gaul, and Spain.—_Palmer._

The offices for the third, sixth, and ninth hours, were shorter than the others, and were nearly the same every day. Bishop Cosin drew up, by royal command, a form of devotion for private use for the different canonical hours. It is supposed that the seven hours of prayer took their rise from the example of the psalm, “Seven times a day do I give thanks unto thee;” but the ancient usage of the Church does not sanction more than two or three times for stated _public_ prayer. (See _Primer_.)

HOUSEL. (_Saxon._) The blessed eucharist. Johnson derives it from the Gothic _hunsel_, a sacrifice, or _hostia_, dim. _hostiola_, Latin. Todd, in his emendations, remarks on the verb to housel, that an old lexicography defines it specially, “to administer the communion to one who lieth on his death-bed.” It was, perhaps, in later times more generally used in this sense: still it was often employed, as we find from Chaucer, and writers as late as the time of Henry VIII., as in Saxon times, to signify absolutely the receiving of the eucharist.—_Jebb._

HUGUENOTS. A name by which the French Protestants were distinguished, very early in their history. The name is of uncertain derivation; some deduce it from one of the gates of the city of Tours, called _Hugon’s_, at which these Protestants held their first assemblies; others from the words _Huc nos_, with which their original protest commenced; others from the German, _Eidgenossen_, (associated by oath,) which first became _Egnots_ and afterwards _Huguenots_.

The origin of the sect in France dates from the reign of Francis I., when the principles and doctrines of the German Reformers found many disciples among their Gallic neighbours. As everywhere else, so in France, the new doctrines spread with great rapidity, and called forth the energies both of Church and State to repress them. Both Francis and his successor, Henry II., placed the Huguenots under various penal disabilities, and they were subjected to the violence of the factious French among their opponents, without protection from the State: but the most terrible deed of horror which was perpetrated against them was the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s day. (See _Bartholomew_.) A scene which stands recorded in history, as if to teach us to how great a depth of cruelty and oppression mankind may be driven by fanaticism.

In the reign of Henry IV. the Huguenots were protected by the edict of Nantes, which was revoked, however, in 1685, by Cardinal Mazarin, the minister of Louis XIV.: on this occasion 500,000 of this persecuted race took refuge in the neighbouring Protestant states. At the Revolution, the Huguenots were restored to their civil rights, so far as civil rights were left to any citizens of a libertine and infidel state: and at present their ministers, like those of all Christian sects, are paid a scanty pittance by the State.

In doctrine and discipline the Huguenots symbolized with Calvin, and the sect which he originated at Geneva.

HULSEAN LECTURES. Lectures delivered at Cambridge, under the will of the Rev. John Hulse, late of Elworth, bearing date the 12th day of July, 1777. The number, originally twenty, is now reduced to eight.

HUMANITY OF OUR LORD, is his possessing a true human body and a true human soul. (See _Jesus_.)

HUSSITES. The followers of John Huss, of Bohemia, who maintained Wickliff’s opinions in 1407, with wonderful zeal. The emperor Sigismond sent to him, to persuade him to defend his doctrine before the Council of Constance, which he did A. D. 1414, having obtained a passport and an assurance of safe conduct from the emperor. There were seven months spent in examining him, and two bishops were sent into Bohemia, to inform themselves of the doctrine he preached; and for his firm adherence to the same, he was condemned to be burnt alive with his books, which sentence was executed in 1415, contrary to the safe-conduct, which the Council of Constance basely said that the emperor was not bound to keep to a heretic. His followers believed that the Church consisted only of those predestinated to glory, and that the reprobates were no part of it; that the condemnation of the five and forty articles of Wickliff was wicked and unreasonable. Moreri adds, that they partly afterwards subdivided, and opposed both their bishops and secular princes in Bohemia; where, if we must take his word, they were the occasion of great disorders and civil commotions in the fifteenth century.

HUTCHINSONIANS. “The name of Hutchinsonians,” says Jones of Nayland, who, with Bishops Horne and Horsley, was the most distinguished of those who bore the name, “was given to those gentlemen who studied Hebrew, and examined the writings of John Hutchinson, Esq., [born at Spennythorpe, in Yorkshire, 1674,] and became inclined to favour his opinions in theology and philosophy. The theological opinions of these divines, so far as they were distinguished from those of their own age, related chiefly to the explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity, [see Note L. to Dr. Mill’s five Sermons on the Temptation of Christ,] and to the manner in which they confirmed Divine revelation generally, by reference to the natural creation. The notion of a Trinity, it was maintained, was the token from the three agents in the system of nature, fire, light, and air, on which all natural light and motion depend, and which were said to signify the three supreme powers of the GODHEAD in the administration of the spiritual world. This led to their opposing Newton’s theory of a vacuum and gravity, and to their denying that most matter is, like the mind, capable of active qualities, and to their ascribing attraction, repulsion, &c., to subtle causes not immaterial.

In natural philosophy they maintained that the present condition of the earth bears evident marks of an universal flood, and that extraneous fossils are to be accounted for by the same catastrophe. They urged great precaution in the study of classical heathen literature, under the conviction that it had tended to produce pantheistic notions, then so popular. They also looked with some suspicion upon what is called natural religion, and to many passages of Scripture they gave a figurative, rather than a literal, interpretation.—See _Jones’s Life of Bishop Horne_.

The learned and pious Parkhurst was a Hutchinsonian; and his peculiar opinions not a little influenced his etymological conjectures, though in no way interfering with his orthodoxy and sound scholarship.

HYMN. A song of adoration. It is certain from Holy Scripture, that the Christians were wont to sing hymns in the apostles’ time; and it is probable that St. Ignatius appointed them to be sung by each side of the choir. It is probable also that the place of these hymns was, as now, after the lessons: for St. Ambrose notes, that as, after one angel had published the gospel, a multitude joined with him in praising GOD, so, when one minister hath read the gospel, all the people glorify GOD. The same appears to have been the custom from St. Augustine, and from a constitution of the Council of Laodicea, in the year 365. As for the particular hymns of our Church, they are, as of old in the primitive Church, generally taken out of Scripture; yet as they also made use of some hymns not found in Scripture, so do we.

Hymns may be said to consist of three kinds: (1.) Metrical, such as were in use in the daily service of the unreformed Church. Of this kind there is but one formally authorized by the Church of England, viz. the _Veni Creator_. (2.) Canticles, appointed to be said or sung in the daily service, and divided into verses, and pointed, like the Psalms. The _Te Deum_, and the _Benedictus_, are so expressly called in the Prayer Book; and such by implication are the _Benedicite_, (called a canticle,) the _Magnificat_, and _Nunc Dimittis_. (3.) Those portions of the Communion Service which are appointed to be said or sung, but not arranged like the Canticles: as the _Tersanctus_, and the _Gloria in Excelsis_. St. Paul (Eph. v. 19, and Col. iii. 16) speaks of psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs. The first of these words would seem to refer to the _mizmor_, or psalm, properly so called; the second to the _tehikah_, or jubilant song of praise; the last to the _shir_, or song; all of which words occur both in the titles, and the text, of the Book of Psalms. (See _Song_.)

HYPERDULIA. (See _Dulia_ and _Idolatry_.)

HYPOSTASIS. A theological Christian term, for the true knowledge of the meaning of which take this short account. The Greeks took it in the first three centuries for _particular substance_, and therefore said there were three _hypostases_, that is, three “Persons,” according to the Latins. Where some of the Eastern people understanding the word _hypostases_ in another sense, would not call the Persons three _hypostases_. Athanasius showed them in a council held at Alexandria in 362, that they all said the same thing, and that all the difference was, that they gave to the same word two different significations: and thus he reconciled them together. It is evident that the word _hypostasis_ signifies two things: first, an individual particular substance; secondly, a common nature or essence. Now when the Fathers say there are “three hypostases,” their meaning is to be judged from the time they lived in; if it be one of the three first centuries, they meant all along three distinct agents, of which the FATHER was supreme. If one of much later date uses the expression, he means, most probably, little more than a mode of existence in a common nature.

HYPOSTATICAL UNION. The union of the human nature of our LORD with the Divine; constituting two natures in one person, and not two persons in one nature, as the Nestorians assert. (See _Union_.)

HYPOTHETICAL, This term is sometimes used in relation to a baptism administered to a child, of whom it is uncertain whether he has been already baptized or not. The rubric states, that “if they who bring the infant to the church do make such uncertain answers to the priest’s questions, as that it cannot appear that the child was baptized with water, in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST,” then the priest, on performing the baptism, is to use this form of words, viz. “If thou art not already baptized, N——, I baptize thee in the name,” &c.

This, therefore, is called an _hypothetical_ or _conditional_ form, being used only on the supposition that the child may not have already received baptism.

HYPSISTARIANS. Heretics in the fourth century of Christianity. According to Gregory Nazianzen, (whose own father had once been a member of the sect, but afterwards became a Christian bishop,) they made a mixture of the Jewish religion and paganism, for they worshipped fire with the pagans, and observed the sabbath, and legal abstinence from meats, with the Jews.

ICONOCLASTS, or IMAGE BREAKERS. (See _Images_, _Image Worship_, and _Idolatry_.) From εἰκὼν, _an image_, and κλάω, _to break_. A name given to the image-breakers in the eighth century. _Sarantapechs_, or _Serantampicus_, a Jew, persuaded _Ezidus_, or _Gizidus_, king of the Arabs, to take the images of saints out of churches that belonged to the Christians: and some time after, _Bazere_, [but Baronius writes _Beser_,] becoming a Mahometan in Syria, where he was a slave, insinuated himself so much into the favour of Leo Isauricus, that this prince, at his and the persuasion of other Jews, who had foretold him his coming to the empire, declared against images, about 726, ordered the statue of CHRIST, placed over one of the gates of the city, to be thrown down, and being enraged at a tumult occasioned thereby, issued a proclamation wherein he abolished the use of statues, and menaced the worshippers with severe punishments; and all the solicitations of Germanus the patriarch, and of the bishop of Rome, could prevail nothing in their favour. His son and successor Constantine forbade praying to saints or the Virgin; he set at nought the pope, and assembled a council, in which his proceedings were approved; but this council, being condemned at Rome, the emperor strove more than ever to gain his point. Leo IV. succeeded in 775, and reigned but four years, leaving his son Constantine under the tutelage of the empress Irene. In her time, A. D. 787, was held the second Council of Nice, in which, according to Baronius, a request was made that the image of CHRIST and of the saints might be restored. But Spanheim says that Philip the emperor, and John, patriarch of Constantinople, having rejected the sixth general council against the Monotheletes in 712, took away the pictures of the Fathers of that and the former councils, hung up by the emperor Justinian, in the portico of St. Sophia; and that the pope thereupon, in a synod at Rome, ordered the like images to be placed in St. Peter’s church, and thenceforth worshipped; their use until that time being purely historical. The Saracens, offended at that superstition, persecuted the Christians; and Leo calling a synod issued a proclamation, condemning the worship of images, but granting that they might be hung up in churches, the better to prevent idolatry; and upon a further dispute with Pope Gregory II., who excommunicated him, and absolved his subjects from their obedience in 730, he commanded that they should be quite taken down and destroyed. Constantine Copronymus followed his father’s example, and in the thirteenth year of his reign, anno 744, assembled the seventh general council of the Greeks, wherein images and their worshippers were condemned. His son Leo IV. followed his steps, who, at his death, leaving the empress Irene to administer the state during the minority of Constantine VII., she, to gain the monks over to her interest, made use of them to restore images, advanced Tarasius from a laic to be patriarch of Constantinople, and so managed the council which she called at Nice, that they decreed several sorts of worship to images; as salutation, incense, kissing, wax lights, &c., but neither approved images of the Trinity, statues, nor any carved work. Constantine being of age, and opposing this procedure, was barbarously deprived of his sight and life by his unnatural mother Irene; an act which is commended by Cardinal Baronius, who declared the emperor Leo incapable of the crown, which he calls a rare example to posterity not to suffer heretical princes to reign. On the other side, the popes imitated their predecessors in their hatred to the Greek emperors, whom they despoiled of their exarchate of Ravenna, and their other possessions in Italy, which, by the help of the French, was turned into St. Peter’s patrimony; but that the French, Germans, and other northern countries, abhorred image worship, is plain by the capitulary of Charlemagne against images, and the acts of the synod of Frankfort under that prince, who also wrote four books to Pope Adrian against image worship, and the illegal Council of Nice above mentioned. Image worship was also opposed by other emperors who succeeded; as also by the Churches of Italy, Germany, France, and Britain, particularly by the learned Alcuin.

IDES. A word occurring in the Roman calendar, inserted in all correct editions of the Prayer Book. The ides were eight days in each month: in March, May, July, and October, the ides ended on the 15th, and in all other months, on the 13th day. The word Ides, taken from the Greek, (ειἶδος,) means an aspect or appearance, and was primarily used to denote the full moon. The system of the original Roman calendar was founded on the change of the moon, the nones being the completion of the first quarter, as the ides were of the second.—_Stephens, Book of Common Prayer; Notes on the Calendar._

IDOLATRY. (See _Images_ and _Iconoclasts_.) From εἶδωλον, _an idol_, and λατρεία, _worship_. The worship of idols. This is one of the crying sins of the Church of Rome. Palmer, in his Essay on the Church, mentions some of the idolatries and heresies which are held without censure in the Roman communion.

I. It is maintained without censure that Latria, or the worship paid to the Divine nature, is also due to—

Images of CHRIST;

Images of the Trinity;

Images of GOD the FATHER;

Relics of the blood, flesh, hair, and nails of CHRIST;

Relics of the true cross;

Relics of the nails, spear, sponge, scourge, reed, pillar, linen, cloth, napkin of Veronica, seamless coat, purple robe, inscription on the cross, and other instruments of the passion;

Images of the cross;

The Bible;

The Blessed Virgin.

All these creatures ought, according to the doctrines taught commonly and without censure in the Roman communion, to receive the very worship paid to GOD.

II. Divine honours are practically offered to the Virgin and to all the saints and angels. It has been repeatedly and clearly shown, that they are addressed in exactly the same terms in which we ought to address GOD; that the same sort of confidence is expressed in their power; that they are acknowledged to be the authors of grace and salvation. These idolatries are generally practised without opposition or censure.

III. The Virgin is blasphemously asserted to be superior to GOD the SON, and to command him. She is represented as the source of all grace, while believers are taught to look on JESUS with dread. The work of redemption is said to be divided between her and our LORD.

IV. It is maintained that justification leaves the sinner subject to the wrath and vengeance of GOD.

V. That the temporal afflictions of the righteous are caused by the wrath of an angry GOD.

VI. That the righteous suffer the tortures of hell-fire after death.

VII. That the sacrifice of CHRIST on the cross is repeated or continued in the eucharist.

These and other errors contrary to faith are inculcated within the communion of the Roman Church, without censure or open opposition.—_Palmer._

ILE. (See _Aisle_.) The passages in a church, parallel to the nave, from which they are separated by rows of columns and piers, being narrower and lower. The same term is applied to the side passages which sometimes mark the transept and the choir. The aisles of the apin are more properly called the ambulatory. The aisles were adopted from the ancient Basilicas, in which they are for the most part found. They are of comparatively rare occurrence in the Oriental churches. The word is derived from the Latin _ala_, which was used in an architectural sense to mean a side building, as we use _wing_. Thus Vitruvius, as quoted by Facciolati; “In ædificiis _alæ_ dicuntur structura ad latria ædium, dextra, et sinistra protensæ, ut columnarum ordines, vel porticus; quas Græci quoque πτερὰ et πτέρυγας appellant.” And thus in French, the same word _aile_ signifies a wing and a church aisle.

ILLUMINATI, or ALLUMBRADOS. Certain Spanish heretics who began to appear in the world about 1575; but the authors being severely punished, this sect was stifled, as it were, until 1623, and then awakened with more vigour in the diocese of Seville. The edict against them specifies seventy-six different errors, whereof the principal are, that with the assistance of mental prayer and union with GOD, (which they boasted of,) they were in such a state of perfection as not to need either good works, or the sacraments of the Church. Soon after these were suppressed, a new sect, under the same name, appeared in France. These, too, were entirely extinguished in the year 1635. Among other extravagances, they held that friar Antony Bocquet had a system of belief and practice revealed to him which exceeded all that was in Christianity; that by virtue of that method, people might improve to the same degree of perfection and glory that saints and the Virgin Mary had; that none of the doctors of the Church knew anything of devotion; that St. Peter was a good, well-meaning man only; St. Paul never heard scarce anything of devotion; that the whole Church lay in darkness and misbelief; that GOD regarded nothing but himself; that within ten years their notions would prevail all the world over; and then there would be no occasion for priests, monks, or any religious distinctions.

IMAGES. In the religious sense of the word, there appears to have been little or no use of images in the Christian Church for the first three or four hundred years, as is evident from the silence of all ancient authors, and of the heathens themselves, who never recriminated, or charged the use of images on the primitive Christians. There are positive proofs in the fourth century, that the use of images was not allowed; particularly, the Council of Eliberis decrees that pictures ought not to be put in churches, _lest that which is worshipped be painted upon the walls_. Petavius gives this general reason for the prohibition of all images whatever at that time—because the remembrance of idolatry was yet fresh in men’s minds. About the latter end of the fourth century, pictures of saints and martyrs began to creep into the churches. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, ordered his church to be painted with Scripture histories, such as those of Esther, Job, Tobit, and Judith. And St. Augustine often speaks of the pictures of Abraham offering his son Isaac, and those of St. Peter and St. Paul, but without approving the use of them; on the contrary he tells us, the Church condemned such as paid a religious veneration to pictures, and daily endeavoured to correct them, as untoward children.

It was not till after the second Council of Nice that images of GOD, or the Trinity, were allowed in churches. Pope Gregory II., who was otherwise a great stickler for images, in that very epistle which he wrote to the emperor Leo to defend the worship of them, denies it to be lawful to make any image of the Divine nature. Nor did the ancient Christians approve of massy images, or statues of wood, metal, or stone, but only pictures or paintings to be used in churches, and those symbolical rather than any other. Thus, a lamb was the symbol of JESUS CHRIST, and a dove of the HOLY GHOST. But the sixth general council forbade the picturing CHRIST any more under the figure of a lamb, and ordered that he should be represented by the effigies of a man. By this time, it is presumed, the worship of images was begun, anno 692.

The worship of images occasioned great contests both in the Eastern and Western Churches. (See _Iconoclasts_.) Nicephorus, who had wrested the empire from Irene, in the year 802, maintained the worship of images. The emperor Michael, in 813, declared against the worship of images, and expelled Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, Theodorus Studita, Nicetas, and others, who had asserted it. Michael II., desiring to re-establish peace in the East, proposed to assemble a council, to which both the Iconoclasts (those who broke down images) and the asserters of image worship should be admitted; but the latter refusing to sit with heretics, as they called the Iconoclasts, the emperor found out a medium. He left all men free to worship or not worship images, and published a regulation, forbidding the taking of crosses out of the churches, to put images in their place; the paying of adoration to the images themselves; the clothing of statues; the making them godfathers and godmothers to children; the lighting candles before them, and offering incense to them, &c. Michael sent ambassadors into the West to get this regulation approved. These ministers applied themselves to Louis le Debonnaire, who sent an embassy to Rome upon this subject. But the Romans, and Pope Pascal I., did not admit of the regulation; and a synod, held at Paris in 824, was of opinion, that though the use of images ought not to be prohibited, yet it was not allowable to pay them any religious worship. At length the emperor Michael settled his regulation in the East; and his son Theophilus, who succeeded him in the year 829, held a council at Constantinople, in which the Iconoclasts were condemned, and the worship of images restored. It does not appear that there was any controversy afterwards about images. The French and Germans used themselves, by degrees, to pay an outward honour to images, and conformed to the Church of Rome.

Image worship is one great article of modern Popery. “No sooner is a man advanced a little forward into their churches, (says a modern author, speaking of the Roman Catholics,) and begins to look about him, but he will find his eyes and attention attracted by the number of lamps and wax candles, which are constantly burning before the shrines and images of their saints; a sight which will not only surprise a stranger by the novelty of it, but will furnish him with one proof and example of the conformity of the Romish with the Pagan worship, by recalling to his memory many passages of the heathen authors, where their perpetual lamps and candles are described as continually burning before the altars and statues of their deities.” The Romanists believe that the saint to whom the image is dedicated presides in a particular manner about its shrine, and works miracles by the intervention of its image; insomuch that, if the image were destroyed or taken away, the saint would no longer perform any miracle in that place. This is exactly the notion of Paganism, that the gods resided in their statues or images. “Minucius Felix, rallying the gods of the heathens, (they are M. Jurieu’s words,) says: _Ecce funditur, fabricatur; nondum Deus est. Ecce plumbatur, construitur, erigitur: nec adhuc Deus. Ecce ornatur, consecratur, oratur; tum postremo Deus est_. I am mistaken if the same thing may not be said of the Romish saints. _They cast an image, they work it with a hammer; it is not yet a saint. They set it upright, and fasten it with lead; neither is it yet a saint. They adorn, consecrate, and dedicate it; behold, at last, a complete saint!_”

By a decree of the Council of Trent, it is forbidden to set up any extraordinary and unusual image in the churches, without the bishop’s approbation first obtained. As to the consecration of images, they proceed in the same manner as at the benediction of a new cross. At saying the prayer, the saint, whom the image represents, is named: after which the priest sprinkles the image with holy water. But when an image of the Virgin Mary is to be blessed, it is thrice incensed, besides sprinkling: to which are added the _Ave Mary_, psalms, and anthems, and a double sign of the cross.

The Roman Catholics talk much of the miraculous effects of the images of their saints, forgetting that lying wonders are a sign of Antichrist. The image of JESUS CHRIST, which, feeling itself wounded with a dagger by an impious wretch, laid its hand upon the wound, is famous at Naples. The image of St. Catharine of Siena has often driven out devils, and wrought other miracles. Our Lady of Lucca, insolently attacked by a soldier, (who threw stones at her, and had nearly broken the holy child’s head, which she held on her right arm,) immediately set it on her left; and the child liked sitting on that arm so well, that, since that accident, he has never changed his situation.—_Broughton._