A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

The other saint this day commemorated, was likewise one of the twelve apostles, and James’s brother, and consequently of the same degree of consanguinity to our blessed Saviour.

He had two surnames, viz. Thaddeus, which seems to be nothing more than a diminutive of the term Judas, as it is derived from the same Hebrew root; and Lebbeus, which is derived from another Hebrew root, signifying little heart.

SIMONY. The corrupt presentation of any one to an ecclesiastical benefice for money, gift, or reward. It is so called from the sin of Simon Magus, who thought to have purchased the power of conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost for money (Acts viii. 19); though the purchasing holy orders seemed to approach nearer to his offence. It is by the canon law a very grievous offence; and is so much the more odious, because, as Sir Edward Coke observes, it is ever accompanied with perjury; for the presentee is sworn to have committed no simony.

Canon 40, “to avoid the detestable sin of simony,” provides this declaration upon oath, to be taken by every person on being instituted to a benefice; “I do swear that I have made no simoniacal payment, contract, or promise, directly or indirectly, by myself, or by any other to my knowledge or with my consent, to any person or persons whatsoever, for or concerning the procuring or obtaining of this ecclesiastical place, preferment, office, or living, nor will I at any time hereafter perform or satisfy any such kind of payment, contract, or promise, made by any other without my knowledge or consent: so help me God through Jesus Christ.”

And by statute 31 Eliz. c. 6, for the avoiding of simony and corruption, it is provided that all presentations made for such consideration as is described in the above-quoted canon, shall be utterly void; and any person or body politic or corporate, presenting to a benefice for such consideration, shall forfeit two years’ value or profits of the benefice, and the person procuring himself to be so presented shall be for ever disabled from holding that benefice; and any person who shall take any reward, other than the usual fees for admitting or inducting to a benefice, shall forfeit two years’ profits of such benefice; and the admission or induction shall be void, and the patron may present again as if the person so inducted or admitted were naturally dead.

In the great case of the Bishop of London and Lewis Disney Ffytche, Esq., in the year 1780, the rectory of the parish church of Woodham Walter in Essex being vacant, Mr. Ffytche presented his clerk, the Rev. John Eyre, to the bishop for institution. The bishop being informed that the said John Eyre had given his patron a bond in a large penalty to resign the said rectory at any time upon his request, and the said John Eyre acknowledging that he had given such a bond, the bishop refused to institute him to the living.

Thereupon Mr. Ffytche brought a quare impedit against the bishop in the court of Common Pleas. The cause was decided against the bishop in that court, and, subsequently, in the court of Queen’s Bench; but upon appeal to the House of Lords, after much debate, and the opinions of the judges being called for, the decision of the courts below was, upon the motion of Lord Thurlow, reversed. The lords, however, divided upon the question, and the numbers were nineteen to eighteen for reversing the decision of the inferior law courts, all the bishops present voting in the majority. But that decision of the House of Lords, though much objected to by lawyers at the time, is now held to be settled law. The ground of the decision was, that the bond to the patron to resign was a benefit to the said patron, and therefore the presentation was void. The law upon this matter will be found in the opinions of the judges given to the House of Lords, in 1826, in the case Fletcher v. Lord Sondes. See Bingham’s Reports, iii. 501. The decision in this case led to the passing of the Act 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 25, and was followed by the Act 9 Geo. IV. c. 94, by which bonds of resignation in certain cases are rendered legally valid.

SIN, DEADLY SIN, AND SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. Our sixteenth Article, headed “Of Sin after Baptism,” runs thus: “Not every deadly sin willingly committed after baptism, is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable; wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin, after baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God (we may) arise again, and amend our lives; and therefore they are to be condemned that say they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.”

This Article is levelled against the doctrine of the Novatians of old, who held every sin committed after baptism to be unpardonable. This doctrine being revived by some of the Anabaptists, or other enthusiasts, who sprang up at the beginning of the Reformation, it is not improbable that the compilers of the Articles had an eye likewise upon their heterodoxy. For, as the Papists were wont maliciously to impute the wild doctrines of all the several sorts of enthusiasts to all Protestants, so it was thought here convenient to defend our Church against the imputation of any such opinion.—Dr. Nicholls.

In the preceding Article (of the XXXIX.) notice was taken of a sect of Christians who maintain the peccability of Christ; and in this we have to argue against those who contend for the impeccability of man.—Bp. Tomline.