A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

4. With respect to those who receive baptism in a state of hypocrisy or impenitency, though this sacrament can only increase their condemnation, still pardon and grace are conditionally made over to them, and the saving virtue of regeneration, which had been hitherto suspended, takes effect, when they truly repent and unfeignedly believe the gospel.

RENUNCIATION. In holy baptism, the persons baptized, or in the case of infants their sponsors in their name, are asked, “Dost thou renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow nor be led by them?” And their answer is, “I renounce them all.” This renunciation is of very great antiquity, so great indeed that its beginning cannot be traced, nor any time mentioned when it was not used; so that it is probably of apostolic origin.

REPAIRS OF CHURCHES. Anciently the bishops had the whole tithes of the diocese; a fourth part of which, in every parish, was to be applied to the repairs of the church; but, upon a release of this interest to the rectors, they were consequently acquitted of the repairs of the churches.

And by the canon law, the repair of the church belongeth to him who receiveth this fourth part; that is, to the rector, and not to the parishioners.

But custom (that is, the common law) transferreth the burden of reparation, at least of the nave of the church, upon the parishioners; and likewise sometimes of the chancel, as particularly in the city of London in many churches there.

But, generally, the parson is bound to repair the chancel. Not because the freehold is in him, for so is the freehold of the church; but by the custom of England, which hath allotted the repairs of the chancel to the parson, and the repairs of the church to the parishioners: yet so, that if the custom hath been for the parish, or the estate of a particular person, to repair the chancel, that custom shall be good.

As to the vicars, it is ordained by a constitution of Archbishop Winchelsea, that the chancel shall be repaired by the rectors and vicars, or others to whom such repair belongeth. Whereupon Lyndwood observes, that where there is both rector and vicar in the same church, they shall contribute in proportion to their benefice; which is to be understood where there is not a certain direction, order, or custom, unto which of them such reparation shall appertain.

And as rectors or spiritual persons, so also impropriators, are bound of common right to repair the chancels. This doctrine (under the limitations expressed in the foregoing paragraphs) is clear and uncontested: the only difficulty hath been in what manner they shall be compelled to do it; whether by spiritual censures only, in like manner as the parishioners are compelled to contribute to the repairs of the church, since impropriations are now become lay fees; or whether by sequestrations (as incumbents, and, as it should seem, spiritual impropriators of all kinds, may be compelled).

As to this, it is said to have been the opinion of the court of Common Pleas, that the Spiritual Court may grant sequestration upon an impropriate parsonage, for not repairing the chancel (M. 29. C. 2. 3 Keb. 829); yet by another book it is said, that the court of Common Pleas did incline that there could be no sequestration; for, being made a lay fee, the impropriation was out of the jurisdiction of the court Christian, and they were only to proceed against the person, as against another layman, for not repairing the church. (T. 22. C. 2. 2 Vent. 35.) And by the same case as reported, (2 Mod. 157,) it is said that the whole court, except Judge Atkins, were of that opinion.

On the contrary, Dr. Gibson observes, that impropriations, before they became lay fees, were undoubtedly liable to sequestration; that the king was to enjoy them in the same manner as the religious had done, and nothing was conveyed to the king at the dissolution of monasteries, but what the religious had conveyed; that is, the profits over and above the finding of Divine service, and the repairing of the chancel, and other ecclesiastical burdens: and the general saving (he says) in the 31 Henry VIII. c. 13, may be well extended to a saving of the right of the ordinary in this particular, which right he undoubtedly had by the law and the practice of the Church, which said right is not abrogated by any statute whatsoever. And he observes further these things: 1. That although (as was expressly alleged in the two cases above referred to) this power had been frequently exercised by the spiritual courts, yet no instances do appear, before these, of any opposition made. 2. That, in both the said instances, judgment was given, not upon the matter or point in hand, but upon errors found in the pleadings. 3. That one argument against the allowing the ordinary such jurisdiction was ab inconvenienti, that such allowance would be a step towards giving ordinaries a power to augment vicarages, as they might have done, and frequently did, before the dissolution.