A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

Eleventhly, we say, “The cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay-people.” (Art. XXX.) But they, “If any one say, that, from the command of God and the necessity of salvation, all and every believer in Christ ought to receive both kinds of the most holy sacrament of the eucharist, let him be anathema.”

Twelfthly, we say, “The sacrifices of the mass are blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” (Art. XXXI.) But they, “If any one say that in the mass there is not a true and proper sacrifice offered to God, or that to be offered is nothing else but for Christ to be given to us to eat, let him be anathema.”

There are many other things wherein the doctrine established by the Church of Rome contradicteth ours; but these may be enough to show both the falseness of the calumny that ignorant people put upon our Church of England, as if it was returning to Popery, whereas the doctrine established by our Church doth, in so many and plain terms, contradict the established doctrine of theirs; and also it shows the truth of this part of our doctrine, that some part of theirs is false. For seeing whatsoever is here set down as the doctrine of our Church, is grounded upon Scripture, consented to by reason, and delivered by the Fathers, it cannot but be true doctrine; and seeing theirs do so frequently contradict ours, it cannot but in such things that are so contradictory to ours be false doctrine. And therefore we may well conclude, that even the Church of Rome too hath erred, yea, in matters of faith, and that if she denies it, she must add that to the rest of her errors.—Beveridge.

Concerning the pretended infallibility of the Church of Rome, the celebrated Bishop Bull observes, “We Protestants profess and prove, by most evident arguments, that the Church of Rome hath in sundry points erred, and is guilty of innovation. The patrons of that Church, not able to answer those arguments of ours, tell us this cannot be; that the Church of Rome is infallible, and cannot possibly be guilty of such innovation. Is not this an admirable way of reasoning and disputation? Can the Romanists produce arguments to prove that their Church cannot err, so clear and evident as these alleged by us to demonstrate that she hath erred? Surely no. To make this plain, if I can be infallibly certain that my senses, rightly disposed, and all due requisites to sensation supposed, are infallible, and cannot be deceived about their proper objects (and if I cannot be assured of this, the apostles had no infallible assurance of that which is the foundation of the Christian faith, the resurrection of Christ, which was evidenced to them by their testimony of sense, and that testimony pronounced infallible, Acts i. 3; 1 John i. 1, 2); then I may be infallibly certain that the Church of Rome is not infallible, yea, that she hath grossly erred in her doctrine of transubstantiation, teaching the bread and wine, after the words of consecration, to be turned into the very flesh and blood of Christ, which yet all my senses assure me to remain still the same in nature and substance, that is, bread and wine. If I can be infallibly certain that Christ himself is infallible, that he would not, could not, appoint an institution that should be dangerous and scandalous to his Church, viz. of receiving the holy eucharist in both kinds; if I can be infallibly certain that the whole Church of Christ, that was under the guidance and direction of the apostles, were not grossly deceived, and engaged by the apostles themselves in a practice dangerous and scandalous (and of this I may be as infallibly sure as I am of the truth of the gospel itself); then I may be infallibly certain that the Church of Rome not only may err, but hath grossly erred in that determination of hers, whereby she rejects (in the Council of Constance) communion in both kinds, as a dangerous and scandalous practice. And in the same manner we might proceed to show the falsehood of divers other determinations of the Church of Rome, if this paper would permit; but these are sufficient to any person that shall consult his serious reason. Indeed, I look upon it as a wonderful both just and wise providence of God, that he hath suffered the Church of Rome to fall into such gross errors, (which otherwise it is scarce imaginable how men in their wits, that had not renounced not only the Scriptures, but their reason, yea, and their senses too, could be overtaken with,) and to determine them for articles of faith. For hereby a person of the meanest capacity (so he be sincere, and not under the prejudice of education) may evidently discern with what a strange kind of impudence that Church arrogates to herself an infallibility in all her determinations. And for such of our Church that have been informed of these things, and yet shall leave our communion, and follow the guidance of that Church upon the account of her infallibility, I fear they are in the number of those miserable persons described by the apostle, (2 Thess. ii. 11, 12,) who are given up to strong delusion, that they may believe a lie, &c. That which follows in the text I dread to mention; God avert it from them!”

INFANT BAPTISM. (See Baptism, Infant.)

INFIRMARIAN. An officer in a monastery, who had the care of the sick and infirm. A dignitary in Nice cathedral was so called.—Jebb.

INFINITY. An attribute of God. The idea of infinity or immensity is so closely connected with that of self-existence, that, because it is impossible but something must be infinite, independently and of itself, therefore it must of necessity be self-existent: and because something must of necessity be self-existent, therefore it is necessary that it must likewise be infinite. A necessarily existent being must be everywhere as well as always unalterably the same. For a necessity, which is not everywhere the same, is plainly a consequential necessity only, depending upon some external cause. Whatever therefore exists by an absolute necessity in its own nature, must needs be infinite, as well as eternal. To suppose a finite being to be self-existent, is to say, that it is a contradiction for that being not to exist, the absence of which may yet be conceived without a contradiction; which is the greatest absurdity in the world.

From hence it follows, that the infinity of the self-existent Being must be an infinity of fulness, as well as of immensity; that is, it must not only be without limits, but also without diversity, defect, or interruption. It follows, likewise, that the self-existent Being must be a most simple, unchangeable, incorruptible Being, without parts, figure, motion, divisibility, or any other such properties, as we find in matter. For all these things do plainly and necessarily imply finiteness in their very notion, and are utterly inconsistent with complete infinity.

As to the particular manner in which the Supreme Being is infinite, or everywhere present—this is as impossible for our finite understandings to comprehend and explain, as it is for us to form an adequate idea of infinity. The schoolmen have presumed to assert, that the immensity of God is a point, as his eternity (they think) is an instant. But this being altogether unintelligible, we may more safely affirm, that the Supreme Cause is at all times equally present, both in his simple essence, and by the immediate and perfect exercise of all his attributes, to every point of the boundless immensity, as if it were really all but one single point.—Clarke.

INITIATED. In the early ages of the Church, this term was applied to those who had been baptized, and admitted to a knowledge of the higher mysteries of the gospel. The discipline of the Church at that period, made it necessary that candidates for baptism should pass through a long probation, in the character of catechumens. While in this preparatory state, they were not allowed to be present at the celebration of the eucharist; and in sermons and homilies in their presence, the speaker either waived altogether any direct statement of the sublimer doctrines of Christianity, or alluded to them in an obscure manner, not intelligible to the uninitiated, but sufficiently clear to be interpreted by those for whom they were intended, viz. the baptized or initiated. Hence the phrase so common in the homilies of the Fathers, “the initiated understand what is said.”