A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

The Jewish religion was delivered to one nation, and the main parts of it were to be performed in one place: they were also to be limited in rituals, lest they might have taken some practices from their neighbours round about them, and so by the use of their rites have rendered idolatrous practices more familiar and acceptable to them. And yet they had many rites among them in our Saviour’s time, which are not mentioned in any part of the Old Testament: such was the whole constitution of their synagogues, with all the service and officers that belonged to them; they had a baptism among them, besides several rites added to the paschal service. Our Saviour reproved them for none of these: he went to their synagogues: and, though he reproved them for overvaluing their rites, for preferring them to the laws of God, and making these void by their traditions, yet he does not condemn them for the use of them. And, while of the greater precepts he says, “these things ye ought to have done,” he adds, concerning their rites and lesser matters, “and not to have left the other undone.” (Matt. xxiii. 23.)

If then such a liberty was allowed in so limited a religion, it seems highly suitable to the sublimer state of the Christian liberty, that there should be room left for such appointments and alterations as the different state of times and places should require. In such rules we ought to acquiesce. Nor can we assign any other bounds to our submission in this case, than those which the gospel has limited. “We must obey God rather than man” (Acts v. 29); and we must in the first place “render to God the things that are God’s,” and then “give to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s.” (Matt. xxii. 21.) So that if either Church or State have power to make rules and laws in such matters, they must have this extent given them—that, till they break in upon the laws of God and the gospel, we must be bound to obey them. A mean cannot be put here; either they have no power at all, or they have a power that must go to everything that is not forbid by any law of God. This is the only measure that can be given in this matter.—Bp. Burnet. (See Ceremonies.)

RITUAL. A book or manual in which is given the order and forms to be observed in the celebration of Divine service, the administration of the sacraments, and, in general, all matters connected with external order, in the performance of sacred offices.

Palmer says, the English ritual resembles that of the Eastern Church in the circumstance of combining all the offices of the Church in one volume. The Euchologium, or ritual of the Greeks, now comprises the offices for morning and evening prayer, the liturgy or eucharist, baptism, litany, orders, &c. The Western Churches have more commonly divided these offices into at least four parts, entitled, the breviary, the missal or liturgical book, the ritual, and the pontifical. The ritual and pontifical correspond to that part of the English ritual which begins with the Office of Baptism. The ritual, (termed in the English churches of Salisbury and York, and elsewhere, manual,) comprised all those occasional offices of the Church which a presbyter could administer. The pontifical contained those only which a bishop could perform.

The Euchologium, or ritual of the Greek Church, illustrated with notes by Goar, is well known and easily accessible, and furnishes abundant information with regard to all the rites of the Catholic Church in the East. The baptismal and some other occasional offices of the Jacobites or Monophysites of Alexandria, Antioch, and Armenia, and of the Nestorians, have been published by Assemani in his “Codex Liturgicus.” Many of the Oriental offices for ordination, as well as all the Western, are to be found in the learned treatise of Morinus, “De Ordinationibus.” The most valuable collection of records relative to the occasional offices of the Western Churches has been published by Martene, in his work, “De antiquis Ecclesiæ Ritibus.” This author, with indefatigable industry, transcribed and edited a multitude of ancient manuscripts, and collected whatever had previously been published. So that there is scarcely any branch of ritual knowledge which he has not greatly elucidated.

ROCHET. A linen garment worn by bishops under the chimere. It was their ordinary garment in public during the middle ages. The word rochet, however, is not of any great antiquity, and perhaps cannot be traced further back than the thirteenth century. The chief difference between this garment and the surplice was, that it was of finer material, and that its sleeves were narrower than those of the latter; for we do not perceive in any of the ancient pictures of English bishops those very wide and full lawn sleeves which are now used, which sleeves are now improperly attached to the chimere or black satin robe.

Palmer says, the rochette is spoken of in the old “Ordo Romanus,” under the title of linea; and has, no doubt, been very anciently used by bishops in the Western Church. During the middle ages it was their ordinary garment in public.

Dr. Hody says, that in the reign of Henry VIII., our bishops wore a scarlet garment under the rochette; and that, in the time of Edward VI., they wore a scarlet chimere, like the doctors’ dress at Oxford, over the rochette; which, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, was changed for the black satin chimere used at present.—History of Convocations, p. 141. (See Chimere.)

The chimere seems to resemble the garment used by bishops during the middle ages, and called mantelletum; which was a sort of cope, with apertures for the arms to pass through. (See Du Cange’s Glossary.)

In some foreign cathedrals, the canons wore rochets, as well as other episcopal ornaments.