A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

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.