A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

The Head of the Church established a ministry, with the right and ability to execute all its appointed functions. It was not intellectual eminence, or high station, or influence, wealth, courage, or any other human attribute, which brought into being “the glorious company of the apostles;” but it was the sovereign power alone of him “in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” And was this power to be recalled on the demise of those who were every day doomed to stripes, imprisonments, perils, and death in a thousand shapes? No; for either the Church for the future must fail, the sacraments be obliterated, the “watching for souls” be abolished, or the continuation of the sacred ministry must be demanded with all its original spiritual functions. To the apostles, therefore, was given, (jure divino,) and to them alone, the ability to perpetuate or transmit the gift which the Redeemer had bestowed. From them the prerogatives of episcopacy (or apostolate) were communicated to younger men, including the transmissive or ordaining faculty. Under these, the elders and deacons were put in trust with a share of the original grant of ministerial power,—a power they were themselves incapable of delegating; and by an unbroken succession, in the line of bishops, the Divine commission has reached these latter days of the Church.

If then, as we have shown, Divine right is the only foundation on which the ministry can stand, there is no alternative left to any one claiming office in the Church of God, but to vindicate the legality of his mission by miracle, or some other tangible Divine verification, which no man can dispute; or else to bring forth such credentials as Timothy, Titus, and the ministers ordained by them had to show, viz. the simple evidence of the fact that the apostles, or their successors, had imparted to them the authority they claim to possess. This every bishop, priest, and deacon, in the Catholic Church, is prepared to do.

JURISDICTION. The power and authority vested in a bishop, by virtue of the apostolical commission, of governing and administering the laws of the Church within the bounds of his diocese. The same term is used to express the bounds within which a bishop exercises his power, i. e. his diocese.

In the Saxon times, before the Norman Conquest, there was no distinction of jurisdiction; but all matters, as well spiritual as temporal, were determined in the county court, called the Sheriff’s Tourn, where the bishop and earl (or in his absence the sheriff) sat together; or else in the hundred court, which was held in like manner before the lord of the hundred and ecclesiastical judge.

For the ecclesiastical officers took their limits of jurisdiction from a like extent of the civil powers. Most of the old Saxon bishoprics were of equal bounds with the distinct kingdoms. The archdeaconries, when first settled into local districts, were commonly fitted to the respective counties. And rural deaneries, before the Conquest, were correspondent to the political tithings. Their spiritual courts were held, with a like reference to the administration of civil justice. The synods of each province and diocese were held at the discretion of the metropolitan and the bishop, as great councils at the pleasure of the prince. The visitations were first united to the civil inquisitions in each county; and afterwards, when the courts of the earl and bishop were separated, yet still the visitations were held like the sheriff’s tourns, twice a year, and like them too after Easter and Michaelmas, and still, with nearer likeness, the greater of them was at Easter. The rural chapters were also held, like the inferior courts of the hundred, every three weeks; then, and like them too, they were changed into monthly, and at last into quarterly meetings. Nay, and a prime visitation was held commonly, like the prime folemote or sheriff’s tourn, on the very calends of May.

And accordingly Sir Henry Spelman observes, that the bishop and the earl sat together in one court, and heard jointly the causes of Church and commonwealth; as they yet do in parliament. And as the bishop had twice in the year two general synods, wherein all the clergy of his diocese of all sorts were bound to resort for matters concerning the Church; so also there was twice in the year a general assembly of all the shire for matters concerning the commonwealth, wherein, without exception, all kinds of estates were required to be present, dukes, earls, barons, and so downward of the laity; and especially the bishop of that diocese among the clergy. For in those days the temporal lords did often sit in synods with the bishops, and the bishops in like manner in the courts of the temporality, and were therein not only necessary, but the principal judges themselves. Thus by the laws of King Canute, “the shyre-gemot (for so the Saxons called this assembly of the whole shire) shall be kept twice a year, and oftener if need require, wherein the bishop and the alderman of the shire shall be present, the one to teach the laws of God, the other the laws of the land.” And among the laws of King Henry I., it is ordained, “first, let the laws of true Christianity (which we call the ecclesiastical) be fully executed with due satisfaction; then let the pleas concerning the king be dealt with; and, lastly, those between party and party: and whomsoever the Church synod shall find at variance, let them either make accord between them in love, or sequester them by their sentence of excommunication.” And the bishop first gave a solemn charge to the people touching ecclesiastical matters, opening unto them the rights and reverence of the Church, and their duty therein towards God and the king, according to the word of God: then the alderman in like manner related unto them the laws of the land, and their duty towards God, the king, and commonwealth, according to the rule and tenure thereof.

The separation of the ecclesiastical from the temporal courts was made by William the Conqueror: for upon the conquest made by the Normans, the pope took the opportunity to usurp upon the liberties of the crown of England; for the Conqueror came in with the pope’s banner, and under it won the battle. Whereupon the pope sent two legates into England, with whom the Conqueror called a synod, deposed Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, because he had not purchased his pall from Rome, and displaced many bishops and abbots to make room for his Normans. This admission of the pope’s legates first led the way to his usurped jurisdiction in England; yet no decrees passed or were put in execution, touching matters ecclesiastical, without the royal assent; nor would the king submit himself in point of fealty to the pope, as appears by his epistle to Gregory VII. Yet in his next successor’s time, namely, in the time of King William Rufus, the pope, by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, attempted to draw appeals to Rome, but did not prevail. Upon this occasion it was, that the king said to Anselm, that none of his bishops ought to be subject to the pope, but the pope himself ought to be subject to the emperor; and that the king of England had the same absolute liberty in his dominions, as the emperor had in the empire. Yet in the time of the next king, King Henry I., the pope usurped the patronage and donation of bishoprics, and of all other benefices ecclesiastical. At this time, Anselm told the king, that the patronage and investiture of bishops was not his right, because Pope Urban had lately made a decree, that no lay person should give any ecclesiastical benefice. And after this, at a synod held at London, in the year 1107, a decree was made to which the king assented, that from thenceforth no person should be invested in a bishopric by the giving of a ring and pastoral staff (as had been before); nor by any lay hand. Upon which the pope granted that the archbishop of Canterbury for the time being should be for ever legatus natus: and Anselm for the honour of his see obtained, that the archbishop of Canterbury should in all general councils sit at the pope’s foot, as alterius orbis papa, or pope of this part of the world. Yet after Anselm’s death, this same king gave the archbishopric of Canterbury to Rodolph, bishop of London, and invested him with the ring and pastoral staff; and this because the succeeding popes had broken Pope Urban’s promise, touching the not sending of legates into England unless the king should require it. And in the time of the next king, King Stephen, the pope gained appeals to the court of Rome; for in a synod at London, convened by Henry, bishop of Winchester, the pope’s legate, it was decreed, that appeals should be made from provincial councils to the pope: before which time appeals to Rome were not in use. Thus did the pope usurp three main points of jurisdiction, upon three several kings after the Conquest, (for of King William Rufus he could gain nothing,) viz. upon the Conqueror, the sending of the legates or commissioners to hear and determine ecclesiastical causes; upon Henry I., the donation and investiture of bishoprics and other benefices; and upon King Stephen, the appeals to the court of Rome. And in the time of King Henry II., the pope claimed exemption for clerks from the secular power. And finally, in the time of King John, he took the crown from off the king’s head, and compelled him to accept his kingdom from the pope’s donation. Nevertheless all this was not obtained without violent struggle and opposition: and this caused the statutes of provisors to be made, in the reigns of King Edward III. and King Richard II. The limits of ecclesiastical jurisdiction were finally settled by the statute of 24 Henry VIII. c. 12. Jurisdiction is also applied to the power vested in certain dignitaries, as dean, chancellor, &c., in some cathedrals; and in many, when each individual prebendary had a peculiar jurisdiction.

JUSTIFICATION. (See Faith and Sanctification.) Justification, in the language of Scripture, signifies our being accounted just or righteous in the sight of God.—Tomline.

A clear understanding of the difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome upon this subject is most important, since the difference between the two Churches on this point causes an essential and vital difference through the whole system of their theology. The definition of the Church of England is set forth in her Articles and Homilies: and it is there propounded in a manner so perspicuous, as to preclude, it might well be thought, all possibility of misapprehension.

As contained in the eleventh and twelfth and thirteenth Articles, the definition runs in terms following: