A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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