“C” Entries

Calendar, The Week of Creation.—The week, another primeval measure, is not a natural measure of time, as some astronomers and chronologers have supposed indicated by the phases or quarters of the moon. It was originated by divine appointment at the creation, six days of labor and one of rest being wisely appointed for man’s physical and spiritual well-being.—“Analysis of Sacred Chronology,” S. Bliss, p. 10. Oakland, Cal.: Pacific Press Publishing House, 1887.SBBS 94.11

Calendar, Antiquity of the Week.—There can be no doubt about the great antiquity of measuring time by a period of seven days (Genesis 8:10; 29:27). The origin of this division of time is a matter which has given birth to much speculation. Its antiquity is so great, its observance so widespread, and it occupies so important a place in sacred things, that it must probably be thrown back as far as the creation of man. The week and the Sabbath are thus as old as man himself.—“A Dictionary of the Bible,” William Smith, art. “Week,” p. 745. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company.SBBS 94.12

Calendar, The Week Primeval.—This primeval measure of time [was] instituted as a memorial of the work of creation in six days, and of the ensuing Sabbath.... It was therefore universally observed by Noah’s descendants during the prevalence of the patriarchal religion; but when mankind degenerated, and sunk into idolatry, the primitive institution was neglected, and at length lost. And the days of the week were dedicated by the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Syrians, etc., to the heavenly host, the sun, moon, and planets.—“A New Analysis of Chronology and Geography,” William Hales, Vol. I, p. 18. London: C. J. G. & F. Rivington, 1830.SBBS 94.13

Calendar, The Week Fixed by the Sabbath Institution.—This is evident from the word Sabbat, or Sabbata, denoting a week among the Syrians, Arabians, Christian Persians, and Ethiopians; as in the following ancient Syriac calendar, expressed in the Chaldee alphabet:SBBS 95.1

[Chaldee word] One of the Sabbath, or week Sunday [Chaldee word] Two of the Sabbath Monday [Chaldee word] Three of the Sabbath Tuesday [Chaldee word] Four of the Sabbath Wednesday [Chaldee word] Five of the Sabbath Thursday [Chaldee word] Eve of the Sabbath Friday [Chaldee word] The Sabbath Saturday

The high antiquity of this calendar is evinced by the use of the cardinal numbers, one, two, three, etc., instead of the ordinals first, second, third, etc., following the Hebrew idiom; as in the account of the creation, where we read in the original, “One day,” which the Septuagint retains, calling it [Greek words, transliterated “hemera mia”]. It is remarkable that all the evangelists follow the Syriac calendar, both in the word [Greek word, transliterated “sabbata”], used for “a week,” and also in retaining the cardinal number [Greek words, transliterated “mia sabbaton”] “one of the week,” to express the day of the resurrection. Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1.—Id., Vol. I, pp. 19, 20.SBBS 95.2

Calendar, Week Not Astronomical.—The week is a period of seven days, having no reference whatever to the celestial motions,-a circumstance to which it owes its unalterable uniformity. Although it did not enter into the calendar of the Greeks, and was not introduced at Rome till after the reign of Theodosius, it has been employed from time immemorial in almost all Eastern countries; and as it forms neither an aliquot part of the year nor of the lunar month, those who reject the Mosaic recital will be at a loss, as Delambre remarks, to assign to it an origin having much semblance of probability.—The Enclopedia Britannica, Vol. IV, art. “Calendar,” p. 988, 11th edition.SBBS 95.3

Calendar, Bible Day from Sunset to Sunset.—The Jews reckoned their days from evening to evening, according to the order which is mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis, in the account of the work of creation: “The evening and the morning were the first day.” Their Sabbath, therefore, or seventh day, began at sunset on the day we call Friday, and lasted till the same time on the day following.—“A Summary of Biblical Antiquities,” John W. Nevin, D. D., Assistant Teacher in the Theological Seminary of Princeton, chap. 8, sec. 4 (Vol. I, p. 171). Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1849.SBBS 95.4

According to the Jewish computation of time, the day commences at sunset. On Friday evening, and about one hour before sunset on this evening, all business transactions and secular occupations cease, and the twenty-four hours following are devoted to the celebration of the holy Sabbath.—“The History of the Jews,” Matthew A. Berk, Appendix, p. 421. Boston: M. A. Berk, 1849.SBBS 95.5

One of the priests stood, of course, and gave a signal beforehand, with a trumpet, at the beginning of every seventh day, in the evening twilight, as also at the evening when the day was finished, giving notice to the people when they were to leave off work, and when they were to go to work again.—“Wars of the Jews,” Flavius Josephus, book 4, chap. 9, sec. 12, p. 565. London: Milner and Company.SBBS 96.1

Calendar, Day, The Roman Midnight Plan.—The only trace of the ancient manner of dating a festival from the eve, or vesper, of the previous day,-a practice discontinued since the twelfth century, when the old Roman way of counting the day from midnight to midnight was reintroduced,-survives in the “ringing in” of certain days of special solemnity on the night before, and in the fasts of the vigils.—Chambers’s Encyclopedia, art. “Festivals,” Vol. IV, p. 596. London: William and Robert Chambers, 1898.SBBS 96.2

Calendar, Days as Designated in Scripture.—The Jews had not particular names for the first six days of the week, but distinguished them merely by their order; thus, what we now call Sunday was termed the first day of the week, Monday was the second, Tuesday the third, and so of the rest. The seventh day, which we name Saturday, was styled among them the Sabbath, that is, the day of rest. And because this was the most important day of all in the week, the whole week came to be called, from its name, a Sabbath; whence the other days were called also the first day of the Sabbath, the second day of the Sabbath, and so on in their order.—“A Summary of Biblical Antiquities,” John W. Nevin, Assistant Teacher in the Theological Seminary of Princeton, chap. 8, sec. 4 (Vol. I, p. 174). Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1849.SBBS 96.3

Calendar, Planetary Names of Days from Egypt.—The weekly calendar of seven days was unknown to the early Greeks. Their week consisted of ten days. The early Romans divided the year into months and the months into three unequal and varying parts, the Kalends, of thirteen to fifteen days, the Ides, of seven to nine days, and the Nones, of nine days. The Egyptians, like the Assyrians and Babylonians, were advanced astronomers, and in very remote time, but how early is not known, had their weeks of seven days each. How they came to have weeks of seven days like the Akkadians, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians, is not known. Nor is it known why they also called their days for the sun, the moon, and five of the planets. This Egyptian division of time was introduced into Rome and supplanted the Roman calendar, but the time of the innovation is not certainly known, some authorities placing it in the second and others in the fourth century of the Christian era.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. XI, art. “Week,” p. 147. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1911.SBBS 96.4

Dion Cassius, who wrote in the second century, and speaks of it [the week] as both universal and recent in his time. He represents it as coming from Egypt.—McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, Vol. XII, p. 897.*SBBS 96.5

Calendar, English Names of Days.—The English names of the days are derived from the Saxon. The ancient Saxons had borrowed the week from some Eastern nation, and substituted the names of their own divinities for those of the gods of Greece. In legislative and justiciary acts the Latin names are still retained.SBBS 96.6

Latin English Saxon Dies Solis Sunday Sun’s day Dies Luna Monday Moon’s day Dies Martis Tuesday Tiw’s day Dies Mercurii Wednesday Woden’s day Dies Jovis Thursday Thor’s day Dies Veneris Friday Frigg’s day Dies Saturni Saturday Seterne’s day

-Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. IV, art. “Calendar,” p. 988, 11th ed.SBBS 97.1

Calendar, The Months in the Old Testament.—Moses named the first month of the year Abib (Exodus 12:2; 13:4), signifying “green” from the green ears of corn at that season; for it began about the vernal equinox. The second month was named Zif, signifying in Chaldee, “Glory,” or “splendor,” in which the foundation of Solomon’s temple was laid. 1 Kings 6:1. The seventh month was styled Ethanim, which is interpreted “Harvests” by the Syriac Version. 1 Kings 8:2. The eighth month, Bul, from “the fall” of the leaf. 1 Kings 8:2.SBBS 97.2

Besides these names, given before the Babylonian captivity, there were others after. The first month was also called Nisan, signifying “flight” [Esther 3:7; Nehemiah 2:1]; because in that month the Israelites were thrust out of Egypt. Exodus 12:39. The third month, Sivan, signifying “a bramble.” [Esther 8:9.] The sixth month, Alul, signifying “mourning;” probably because it was the time of preparation for the great day of atonement, on the tenth day of the seventh month. Nehemiah 6:15. The ninth month was called Chisleu, signifying “chilled;” when the cold weather sets in, and fires are lighted. Zechariah 7:1; Jeremiah 36:22. The tenth month was called Tebeth, signifying “miry.” Esther 2:16. The eleventh, Shebet, signifying a “staff,” or a “scepter.” Zechariah 1:7. And the twelfth, Adar, signifying a “magnificent mantle,” probably from the profusion of flowers and plants with which the earth then begins to be clothed in warm climates. Ezra 6:15; Esther 3:7. It is said to be a Syriac term. 2 Mac. 16: 36.—“New Analysis of Chronology and Geography,” William Hales, p. 26. London: C. J. G. & F. Rivington, 1830.SBBS 97.3

Note.—Previous to the Babylonish captivity, the Hebrews gave all the months Jewish names, only four of which have come down to us, namely, Abib or Nisan. the 1st; Zif of Ivar, the 2nd; Ethanim or Tisri, the 7th; Bul or Marchesvan, the 8th. In the Bible the months are usually designated by numbers, but during the exile Babylonian names were introduced, and these are still in use among the Jews. The names now generally used, with their approximate corresponding months, are as follows:SBBS 97.4

Abib, or Nisan April Tisri, or Ethanim October Zif, or Iyar May Bul, or Marchesvan November Sivan June Chisleu December Thammuz July Tebeth January Ab August Shebat February Elul September Adar March Veader Intercalary

-Table compiled from the Oxford Bible, Cyclopedic Concordance, art. “Months: Jewish Calendar.”SBBS 97.5

Calendar.—See Sabbath; Week; Year-day Principle, 587.SBBS 97.6

Calvin, John.—See Protestantism, 398, 400; Servetus.SBBS 97.7

Canon, Definition of.—The term “canon” properly signifies a measuring reed or rule; and is sometimes applied to the tongue of a balance, which indicates by its position whether the scales are in equilibrium. Hence, canonical books are those which form the divine rule, by which men ascertain whether they are walking orderly in the straight path of God’s law, and by which they examine themselves, whether they are in the faith, and weigh their lives, as it were, in the balance of the sanctuary. In a word, the canon of Scripture is the divinely inspired code of belief and practice.—“On the Inspiration of the Holy Scripture,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 5, 6. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1851.SBBS 97.8

Canon, Old Testament, How Anciently Classified.—The Old Testament, according to our Bibles, comprises thirty-nine books.... But, among the ancient Jews, they formed only twenty-two books, according to the letters of their alphabet, which were twenty-two in number; reckoning Judges and Ruth, Ezra and Nehemiah, Jeremiah and his Lamentations, and the twelve minor prophets (so called from the comparative brevity of their compositions), respectively as one book.—“An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,” Thomas Hartwell Horne, B. D., Vol. I, p. 29. New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1854.SBBS 98.1

Canon, Old Testament, Josephus on.—We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them.—“Against Apion,” Flavius Josephus, book 1, par. 8.SBBS 98.2

Canon, Old Testament, How Preserved and Authenticated.—Our present concern is with the Old Testament; and I would now proceed to show that its books, as soon as they were written, were delivered by Almighty God to the keeping of his own people, the Jews; that by them they were received as inspired, and preserved pure and entire till the coming of Christ; that they, and they alone, were acknowledged by him as the sincere word of God; that, being so authenticated by Christ, they passed into the hands of the Christian church; and have been preserved unadulterated and unmutilated, and conveyed by an uninterrupted succession even to ourselves at this day.—“On the Inspiration of Holy Scripture,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., p. 29. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1851.SBBS 98.3

Canon, Old Testament, Christ’s Relation to.—Our blessed Lord was a constant attendant at the worship of the synagogue, and he took part in the public reading and exposition of the sacred books of the Jews: thus he gave a practical testimony and a personal sanction to the tenets of the Jews concerning those books. He, the Son of God, received as divinely inspired Scripture what the Jews received and delivered to him as such. He affirmed those books to be written by the Holy Ghost; and claimed to be received as the Messiah on the authority of their prophecies. He frequently called those books, “The Scriptures;” he commanded the Jews to search their Scriptures; he said, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail;” and again, “Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle [that is, one yod, the smallest letter, and one point of a letter] shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled;” and again, “The Scripture cannot be broken.”SBBS 98.4

He declared that the Sadducees erred by not understanding the Scriptures. “They have Moses and the prophets: let them hear them.” He defined the prophetical age between the limits of Abel and Zacharias. In his walk with the two disciples to Emmaus, after his resurrection, “beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” He said to his apostles, “These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” So spake the Lord of life. And, therefore, the writings of Moses and all the prophets, and the psalms,-that is, all the books received by the Jews under these names, were “all the Scriptures” to Christ.SBBS 99.1

It is therefore clear that our blessed Lord joined with the Jews in receiving what they received as Scripture. And therefore he joined with them also in not receiving what they did not receive as such. He therefore did not receive the Apocrypha as inspired.—Id., pp. 51, 52.SBBS 99.2

Canon, Roman Catholic View of Manner of Determining.—Tradition we have hitherto described as the consciousness of the church, as the living word of faith, according to which the Scriptures are to be interpreted and to be understood. The doctrine of tradition contains, in this sense, nothing else than the doctrine of Scripture; both, as to their contents, are one and the same. But, moreover, it is asserted by the Catholic Church that many things have been delivered to her by the apostles, which Holy Writ either doth not at all comprise, or at most, but alludes to. This assertion of the church is of the greatest moment, and partially indeed, includes the foundations of the whole system. Among these oral traditions must be included the doctrine of the canonicity and the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures; for in no part of the Bible do we find the books belonging to it designated; and were such a catalogue contained in it, its authority must first be made matter of inquiry. In like manner, the testimony as to the inspiration of the Biblical writings is obtained only through the church. It is from this point we first discern, in all its magnitude, the vast importance of the doctrine of church authority, and can form a notion of the infinite multitude of things involved in that doctrine.—“Symbolism; or Exposition of the Doctrinal Differences Between Catholics and Protestants,” John Adam Moehler, D. D. (R. C.), 5th ed., pp. 292, 293. London: Thomas Baker, 1906.SBBS 99.3

Canon, Old Testament, Additions to, by the Church of Rome.—The Church of Rome at the Council of Trent placed other books [the Apocrypha] on an equal footing with those thus delivered to the church of the Jews by God, and which alone were treated as divine by Christ and his apostles; and the Church of Rome anathematized, and still anathematizes, all who do not and cannot receive these other books as of equal authority with those whose inspiration is guaranteed by Christ. What is this but with profane irreverence to dictate to the Supreme Being himself? Must we not say to you, “Apud vos de humano arbitratu Deus pensitatur; nisi homini Deus placuerit, Deus non erit?” [With you is God considered according to human judgment; unless God be acceptable to man, will he not be God?] What is it but to elevate human authors into divine, and, after the manner of ancient Rome, as St. Chrysostom says, [Greek words, transliterated “cheiromonein theous”] [choose gods by vote-hand raising] to create gods by a show of hands?-“Letters to M. Gondon,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 120, 121. London: Francis & John Rivington. 1848.SBBS 99.4

Canon, Old Testament, The Roman Catholic.—The most explicit definition of the Catholic canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows: “The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.” The order of books copies that of the Council of Florence, 1442, and in its general plan is that of the Septuagint.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III, art. “Canon,” p. 270.SBBS 100.1

Canon, New Testament, When Established.—The voice of the universal church, ever unanimous, from apostolic times, on the first canon, and unanimous, from the date of the Council of Nice, on the second, finally became, in the course of the fourth century, unanimous on the second-first likewise. The temporary and late hesitations of the churches of the West regarding the epistle to the Hebrews had already almost entirely disappeared; and the temporary and late hesitations of the churches of the East regarding the Apocalypse, had, from the early part of the fourth century, disappeared likewise. The canon was thus, universally and forever, recognized in all the churches of Christendom.—“The Canon of the Holy Scriptures,” L. Gaussen, D. D., p. 82. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1862.SBBS 100.2

Many persons speak of the list of Sacred Scriptures as if it had furnished nothing but uncertainty to Christians for three centuries, and as if the divine authority of the books of the New Testament had never been distinctly recognized till the end of the fourth. It is, however, on the contrary, an incontestable fact, that the first canon was, at no time, anywhere an object of any uncertainty to the churches of God, and that all the writings of which it consists, that is, eight ninths of the New Testament, were from the moment of their appearance, and through all succeeding ages have been, universally recognized by all the churches of Christendom.—Id., p. 84.SBBS 100.3

Canon, New Testament, How Made.—The books of the New Testament were given by the Holy Spirit into the hands of the church, they were forthwith publicly read: this was their canonization.SBBS 100.4

Let us apply the essayist’s principle to profane authors. The works of Horace and Martial were not published at once, by their respective authors, but at intervals of several years. Now that they are collected together in one volume, we have what may be called a Canon of Horace and Martial. But how was this formed? Did a junta of grammarians sit down at a table and decide what books were to be received as making it? No: the Canon of Horace and Martial made itself, by the general reception of their books, as the works of their respective authors, as soon as they were written. So, much more the canon of the New Testament made itself by the public usage of the church in all parts of the world.—“Letters to M. Gondon,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., p. 91. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848.SBBS 100.5

Canon, New Testament, When Commenced and Completed.—The whole canon of the Scriptures of the New Testament was commenced and completed during the latter half of the first century. It was during this period that the church, already formed and unceasingly extending, reached the extremities of the earth, through the incomparable labors of Paul, Peter, John, Thomas, and other apostles, as well as of so many other witnesses, whose names, unknown to us, are recorded in heaven.SBBS 101.1

21. It is, therefore, necessary we should distinctly understand that the primitive church, during her militant and triumphant march through the first half-century of her existence, saw her New Testament canon forming in her hand, as a nosegay is gradually formed in the hand of a lady walking through plots of flowers with the proprietor of the garden by her side. As she advances, the latter presents to her flower after flower, till she finds herself in possession of an entire bunch. And, just as the nosegay attracts admiring attention before it is filled up, and as soon as the few first flowers have been put together, so the New Testament canon began to exist for the Christian church from the moment the earliest portions of inspired Scriptures had been put into her hands.—“The Canon of the Holy Scriptures,” L. Gaussen, D. D., pp. 14, 15. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1862.SBBS 101.2

Canon, New Testament, Not Settled by Councils.—We allow that no catalogue of the books of the New Testament is found in the extant decrees of any council of the church more ancient than those of Laodicea and Carthage, toward the close of the fourth century. But, waiving the argument that the decrees of many earlier councils have been lost, and that such catalogues may have existed in them, we affirm, and shall proceed to prove, that the books of the New Testament had been received as inspired not only long before that age, but in and from the time in which they were written; and that those two councils, in publishing these lists, did not imagine that they were making, or could make, any book to be canonical which was not canonical before. They did not intend to enact anything new, but only to declare what was old; just as the Church of England, in the sixteenth century, when she published a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament in her Sixth Article, did not pretend to give any new authority to those books, but only affirmed what the church had believed concerning them from the beginning.—“On the Inspiration of Holy Scripture,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 134, 135. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1851.SBBS 101.3

Not one author, either of the fourth, or fifth, or sixth century, appeals, on the subject of the canon, to the decisions of any council. Thus, when Cyril, patriarch of Jerusalem, who was born (it is believed) twenty years after Athanasius, gives us his catalogue of inspired books, he refers to no council, and only appeals to “the apostles, and the ancient bishops who presided over the churches, and transmitted to us those books as inspired.”SBBS 101.4

Likewise, when Augustin, about the end of the same century, or rather the beginning of the fifth, wrote an answer to certain persons who had inquired of him “which books were truly canonical,” he simply referred to the testimony of the various churches of Christendom, and not to any council whatever.SBBS 102.1

Likewise, when Rufinus, a presbyter of Aquileia, about the year 340, gives his catalogue (also identical with ours), he simply professes to present “the tradition of their ancestors, who had transmitted these books to the churches of Christ, as divinely inspired,” and he declares that he gives it just as he had copied it from the records of the Fathers.SBBS 102.2

Lastly, when Cassiodorus, a Roman consul in the sixth century, gives us three catalogues of the books of the New Testament (one from Jerome, another from Augustin, and another from an ancient version), he, too, makes no reference to any decree or to any council.SBBS 102.3

Let it, then, be no longer said that the authority of councils fixed the canon of Scripture. It was, indeed, fixed; but the authority of councils had nothing to do with it. It was the will of God that Christians individually, and Christian congregations, enlightened by the testimony of successive generations of believers, should form their opinions on the subject of the canon with entire liberty of judgment, that the authenticity of the sacred books might be rendered more manifest.—“ The Canon of the Holy Scriptures,” L. Gaussen, D. D., pp. 88, 89. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1862.SBBS 102.4

Canon, New Testament, Relation of Church to.—It is said that the church is more ancient than Scripture; that there was a church of God on earth before the Old Testament; and that the Christian church existed before any of the New Testament was written; and therefore, it is said, Scripture depends upon the church. But this proceeds on the false assumption that the authority of Scripture is grounded on the fact of its being written; whereas it is wholly derived from its being the word of God. Scripture is God’s word written; the writing of the word is no necessary condition of its existence, though it is a quality very useful for the preservation and diffusion of the word....SBBS 102.5

The church, then, is a divinely instituted society of believers, who are born by water and the word; the church is cleansed and sanctified by the word, for “Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” She therefore owes all her being and her beauty to the word; and she is, therefore, posterior to the word, though not to the writing of the word. This word proceeds from Christ, the Alpha and Omega of all God’s revelations; and by God’s will, for our salvation, it was consigned to writing, and it has been committed by God to the custody of the church, who is commanded to preach the same; but it is as preposterous to affirm that it owes its authority to the church, as it would be to say that a royal writ depends for its validity on the Keeper of the Great Seal; or that the power of the monarch is derived from the herald who proclaims his accession to the throne.SBBS 102.6

It is to be observed, also, that, by resolving our belief in the canon of Scripture into the tradition of the church, as the sufficient and final cause of our assent to the same, we should, in fact, be undermining the foundations of the church herself, and leave ourselves without any ground for belief in her teaching; for this belief rests on the word of God. But if the word of God is to depend entirely for its authority on the witness of the church, then we shall have, in fine, the church bearing testimony to herself,-a kind of evidence which no one can be bound to receive. And this objection is much stronger against the Romish theory, when we remember that it would require us to resolve our faith in the canon of Scripture, not into the tradition of the primitive universal church, but into that of the existing Roman branch of it, which is at variance with that of the catholic church; so that, in fact, it would leave us without any sure ground for belief, either in Scripture or the church.—“ On the Inspiration of Holy Scripture,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 16-19. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1851.SBBS 102.7

Canon, New Testament, Accepted at Nice.—The discussions which took place at Nice were in accordance with the principle thus laid down, if the history of Gelasius be trustworthy. Scripture was the source from which the champions and assailants of the orthodox faith derived their premises; and among other books, the Epistle to the Hebrews was quoted as written by St. Paul, and the catholic epistles were recognized as a definite collection. But neither in this nor in the following councils were the Scriptures themselves ever the subjects of discussion. They underlie all controversy, as a sure foundation, known and immovable.—“A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament,” Brooke Foss Westcott, M. A., p. 495. Cambridge: Macmillan & Co., 1855.SBBS 103.1

Canon, New Testament, How Guaranteed.—Thus we perceive that the reception of the New Testament, by the primitive church, as the unerring word of God, is guaranteed by irrefragable proofs. It is evinced by catalogues; it is proclaimed by councils; it is shown by the fury of persecutors, and by the fraud of heretics; by the courage of martyrs, and by the zeal of the church. It is declared by a continued succession of writers, from the age of the apostles to our own.—“ On the Inspiration of Holy Scripture,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., p. 153. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1851.SBBS 103.2

Canon, New Testament, from Apostolic Times.—We, therefore, proceed to observe that we possess an uninterrupted series of writings from the apostolic times to the present day; and that these contain quotations from the books of the New Testament; and that we have commentaries upon it, reaching downward to us, in unbroken succession, from the third and fourth centuries; and that many of these commentaries exhibit the text of these books; and that we have hundreds of ancient manuscripts of these books from all parts of the world; that we have ancient versions of them in numerous languages; and that these various and independent witnesses coincide with each other, and concur in testifying the fact that the Scriptures of the New Testament existed in primitive times as they exist now, and have been transmitted, pure and entire, from the hands of the apostles to our own.—Id., pp. 141, 142.SBBS 103.3

Canon, Roman Catholic View of.—Pope Gregory VII, in the eleventh century, said very boldly, “Not a single book or chapter of Scripture shall be held canonical without the Pope’s authority.”-“Letters to M. Gondon,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., p. 108. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848.SBBS 103.4

Canon Law (Corpus Juris).—Various collections of church law were made from an early period in her history, but those which are contained in the Corpus Juris are the most celebrated. The Corpus Juris is usually divided into two volumes. The first contains the Decretum of Gratian, a Benedictine monk, who composed his work about the middle of the twelfth century. It is a private collection, and so the documents of which it is composed have only the authority derived from their origin, unless custom or subsequent approbation has given special canons greater weight. The second volume, on the contrary, contains several official collections, made by the authority of the Holy See. These are the Decretals of Gregory IX, the Sext, and the Clementines. Any papal constitution contained in these collections has authority from the very fact of its insertion in the Corpus Juris. The second volume also contains the Extravagants of John XXII, and the Common Extravagants, both of which are private collections, although inserted in the Corpus Juris.SBBS 103.5

The Corpus Juris contains the ancient law of the Catholic Church, which has been modified and accommodated to the times by more recent councils and constitutions of the Holy See. The Council of Trent especially made many changes demanded by the altered circumstances of the times, and the popes have at different times issued a great number of constitutions and laws to meet the constantly changing wants of the church. The constitutions are usually quoted by giving the Pope’s name and the initial words, together with the date of the document.—“A Manual of Moral Theology,” Rev. Thomas Slater, S. J. (R. C.), Vol. I, p. 120. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1908.SBBS 104.1

Canon Law, Contents of.—The first great collection of canons and decretals which the world was privileged to see was made by Gratian, a monk of Bologna, who about 1150 published his work entitled Decretum Gratiani. Pope Eugenius III approved his work, which immediately became the highest authority in the Western Church. The rapid growth of the papal tyranny soon superseded the Decretum Gratiani. Succeeding popes flung their decretals upon the world with a prodigality with which the diligence of compilers who gathered them up, and formed them into new codes, toiled to keep pace. Innocent III and Honorius III issued numerous rescripts and decrees, which Gregory IX commissioned Raymond of Pennafort to collect and publish. This the Dominican did in 1234; and Gregory, in order to perfect this collection of infallible decisions, supplemented it with a goodly addition of his own. This is the more essential part of the canon law, and contains a copious system of jurisprudence, as well as rules for the government of the church.SBBS 104.2

But infallibility had not exhausted itself with these labors. Boniface VIII in 1298 added a sixth part, which he named the Sext. A fresh batch of decretals was issued by Clement V in 1313, under the title of Clementines. John XXII in 1340 added the Extravagantes, so called because they extravagate, or straddle, outside the others. Succeeding pontiffs, down to Sixtus IV, added their extravagating articles, which came under the name of Extravagantes Communes. The government of the world was in some danger of being stopped by the very abundance of infallible law; and since the end of the fifteenth century nothing has been formally added to this already enormous code.—“ The Papacy; Its History, Dogmas, Genius, and Prospects,” Rev. J. A. Wylie, p. 130.SBBS 104.3

Canon Law.—Corpus Juris Canonici [Roman Canon Law].—I. Definition: The term corpus here denotes a collection of documents; corpus juris, a collection of laws, especially if they are placed in systematic order. It may signify also an official and complete collection of a legislation made by the legislative power, comprising all the laws which are in force in a country or society. The term, although it never received legal sanction in either Roman or canon law, being merely the phraseology of the learned, is used in the above sense when the Corpus Juris Civilis of the Roman Christian emperors is meant. The expression corpus juris may also mean, not the collection of laws itself, but the legislation of a society considered as a whole. Hence Benedict XIV could lightly say that the collection of his bulls formed part of the Corpus Juris (Jam fere sextus, 1746).SBBS 104.4

We cannot better explain the signification of the term Corpus Juris Canonici than by showing the successive meanings which were assigned to it in the past and which it usually bears at the present day. Under the name of Corpus Canonum were designated the collection of Dionysius Exiguus and the Collectio Anselmo Dedicata. The Decree of Gratian is already called Corpus Juris Canonici by a glossator of the twelfth century, and Innocent IV calls by this name the Decretals of Gregory IX (Ad Expediendos, 9 Sept., 1253).SBBS 105.1

Since the second half of the thirteenth century, Corpus Juris Canonici, in contradistinction to Corpus Juris Civilis, or Roman law, generally denoted the following collections: (1) the Decretals of Gregory IX; (2) those of Boniface VIII (Sixth Book of the Decretals); (3) those of Clement V (Clementina), i. e., the collections which at that time, with the Decree of Gratian, were taught and explained at the universities. At the present day, under the above title are commonly understood these three collections with the addition of the Decree of Gratian, the Extravagantes of John XXII, and the Extravagantes Communes.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, art. “Canon Law,” p. 391.SBBS 105.2

Canon Law, Content of.—The Corpus Juris Canonici is the collection of ecclesiastical laws in five parts. The first part contains the Decretum of Gratian divided into three parts. The second contains the Decretals divided into five books. The third contains the sixth book of the Decretals, which is also divided into five books. The fourth contains the Clementines, also in five books. The fifth contains the Extravagantes of John XXII, and the Communes, or the Decretals of John XXII, and of other pontiffs from Urban IV to Sixtus IV. The Decretum of Gratian has no force of law except that which the decretals contained in it have of themselves. But the other parts of the canon law have the force of law, and are universally binding, for they contain the pious utterances of the pontiffs and the decrees of the councils.—“Theologia Moralis,” Ligorio (R. C.), 3rd edition, Vol. I, p. 32. Venice, 1885.SBBS 105.3

Canon Law, Decree of Gratian.—It was about 1150 that the Camaldolese monk, Gratian, professor of theology at the University of Bologna, to obviate the difficulties which beset the study of practical, external theology (theologia practica externa), 1. e., canon law, composed the work entitled by himself Concordia Discordantium Canonum, but called by others Nova Collectio, Decreta, Corpus Juris Canonici, also Decretum Gratiani, the latter being now the commonly accepted name. In spite of its great reputation, the Decretum has never been recognized by the church as an official collection....SBBS 105.4

Considered as collections, the Decree of Gratian, the Extravagantes Joannis XXII, and the Extravagantes Communes have not, and never had, a legal value, but the documents which they contain may possess, and as a matter of fact, often do possess, very great authority. Moreover, custom has even given to several apocryphal canons of the Decree of Gratian the force of law. The other collections are official, and consist of legislative decisions still binding, unless abrogated by subsequent legislation.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, art. “Corpus Juris Canonici,” pp. 392, 393.SBBS 105.5

Cardinal.—The word was first used of any cleric regularly settled (incardinatus, “hinged into”) in a church; but it soon became the peculiar designation of a counselor of the Pope.... After many fluctuations, the number of cardinals was fixed at seventy by Sixtus V in 1586. Of these, six are cardinal bishops, fifty are cardinal priests, and fourteen are cardinal deacons. In 1907 the Sacred College consisted of fifty-four members, sixteen short of the plenum, which has not been reached for one hundred and fifty years.SBBS 105.6

The appointment (creatio) of cardinals rests with the Pope, who generally consults the existing cardinals, and often receives proposals from secular governments.... The cardinals in conclave elect the new Pope, have constant access to him, and form his chief council.... They have had since Urban VIII the title of “Eminence.” The body of cardinals is called the Sacred College.... We must add that the chief affairs of the Roman Catholic Church are in the hands of the cardinals. But the cardinals possess no constitutional rights under the absolute government of the Papacy. They cannot even meet together without the Pope’s leave.—Standard Encyclopedia of the World’s Knowledge, Vol. VI, art. “Cardinal,” p. 71. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company.SBBS 106.1

Carey, William.—See Increase of Knowledge, 232.SBBS 106.2

Catholic Church.—See Roman Catholic.SBBS 106.3

Cawnpore Massacre.—See Popery, 388.SBBS 106.4

Celibacy.—Celibacy, in the Roman Catholic Church, means the permanently unmarried state to which men and women bind themselves either by a vow or by the reception of the major orders which implies personal purity in thought and deed... Very early in the history of the church the idea grew up that the unmarried state was preferable (Hermas, I. ii. 3; Ignatius to Polycarp, v), and grew into a positive contempt of marriage (Origen, Hom. vi. in Num.; Jerome, Ad Jovinianum, i. 4). As early as the second century examples of voluntary vows of virginity are found, and the requirement of continence before the performance of sacred functions. By the fourth century canons began to be passed in that sense (Synod of Neocasarea. 314 a. d., canon i; Synod of Ancyra, 314 a. d., canon x). Unmarried men were preferred for ecclesiastical offices, though marriage was still not forbidden; in fact, the clergy were expressly prohibited from deserting a lawfully married wife on religious grounds (Apostolic Canons, v)....SBBS 106.5

Within its own boundaries the Latin Church has held more and more strictly to the requirement of celibacy, though not without continual opposition on the part of the clergy. The large number of canons on this subject enacted from the eighth century on, shows that their enforcement was not easy. After the middle of the eleventh century the new ascetic tendency whose champion was Gregory VII had a strong influence in this matter. Even before Hildebrand’s accession to the Papacy, the legislation of Leo IX (1054), Stephen IX (1058), Nicholas II (1059), and Alexander II (1063), had laid down the principles which as Pope he was to carry out. In the synod of 1074 he renewed the definite enactment of 1059 and 1063, according to which both the married priest who said mass and the layman who received communion at his hands were excommunicate....SBBS 106.6

After the Reformation had done its work, Charles 5 endeavored by the Interim of 1548 to bring about the abolition of these rules, and with several other princes requested the discussion of the question at the Council of Trent. The council, however, maintained the system as a whole, and the following rules are now in force: (1) Through the reception of major orders or the taking of monastic or other solemn vows, celibacy becomes so binding a duty that any subsequent marriage is null and void. (2) Any one in minor orders who marries loses his office and the right to go on to major orders, but the marriage is valid. (3) Persons already married may receive the minor orders if they have the intention of proceeding to the major, and show this by taking a vow of perpetual abstinence; but the promotion to the higher orders can only take place when the wife expresses her willingness to go into a convent and take the veil. The Council of Trent further lays down that the functions of the minor orders may be performed by married men in default of unmarried-though not by those who are living with a second wife.SBBS 106.7

In the nineteenth century attempts were not lacking, even within the Roman Catholic Church, to bring about the abolition of celibacy. They were rather hindered than helped by temporal governments, and always firmly rejected by Rome. Celibacy has been abolished among the Old Catholics; and modern legislation in Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland authorizes the marriage both of priests and of those who have taken a solemn vow of chastity. Austria, Spain, and Portugal still forbid it. The evangelical churches at the very outset released their clergy from the obligation of celibacy, professing to find no validity in the arguments adduced in its favor on the Roman side.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. II, art. “Celibacy,” pp. 465, 466. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company.SBBS 107.1

Celibacy, Canon on.—Canon X. If any one saith that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or in celibacy than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.—“ Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,” p. 164. New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1912.SBBS 107.2

Celibacy, Evils of.—To tell the truth, the parish clergy were not in a temper to think of their own moral elevation, being in sad straits owing to the oppression practised by the monasteries and cathedral chapters, which, after having appropriated most of the parishes, refused to give their secular vicars more than the merest pittance. So widespread was concubinage that a French council complained (Paris, of Sens, c. 23, 1429) of the general impression being prevalent that fornication was merely venial. At Constance and Basel the abrogation of clerical celibacy was proposed by no less a person than the emperor Sigismund. Even small towns in this age owned their public brothels.SBBS 107.3

Faced by all these evils, the heads of the church made proof of astounding forbearance, preferring to leave things alone, so long as their own right, and claims, and revenues were left untouched. The period was deeply conscious of its own irregularities. Throughout it we have to listen to complaints, and demands for reform. Though this is, of course, a pleasing feature, yet the fact that, in spite of countless desires and efforts, two centuries did not suffice to purge the church, is a sad witness to the deeply rooted character of the evils.—“Manual of Church History,” Dr. F. X. Funk, Roman Catholic Professor of Theology in the University of Tubingen, Vol. II, p. 77.*SBBS 107.4

Note.—This work was published in London in 1910, having the imprimatur of Archbishop Bourne’s vicar-general, dated May 16, 1910.SBBS 107.5

Celibacy.—See Decretal Letters, 143; Marriage.SBBS 107.6

Censorship of Books.—After the printing press was invented and used to advance the cause of the Reformation, measures for its regulation were introduced by the church, which first established a formal censorship of books. In a letter addressed to the archbishops of Cologne, Mainz, Treves, and Magdeburg, Alexander VI ordered (1501) that no book should be printed without special authorization. The Lateran Council of 1515 sanctioned the constitution of Leo X, which provided that no book should be printed without having been examined in Rome by the papal vicar and the master of the sacred palace, in other countries by the bishop of the diocese or his deputy and the inquisitor of heresies.SBBS 108.1

Further and more detailed legislation followed, and the Council of Trent decreed (Session IV): “It shall not be lawful to print, or cause to be printed, any books relating to religion without the name of the author; neither shall any one hereafter sell any such books, or even retain them in his possession, unless they have been first examined and approved by the ordinary, on pain of anathema and the pecuniary fine imposed by the canon of the recent Lateran Council.” On these regulations are based a number of enactments in different dioceses which are still in force. The council decreed also that no theological book should be printed without first receiving the approbation of the bishop of the diocese; and this rule is extended in the monastic orders so far as to require the permission of superiors for the publication of a book on any subject.SBBS 108.2

The Council of Trent left the further provision concerning the whole subject to a special commission, which was to report to the Pope. In accordance with its findings, Pius IV promulgated the rule submitted to him and a list of prohibited books in the constitution Dominici gregis custodia of March 24, 1564. Extensions and expositions of this ruling were issued by Clement VIII, Sixtus V, Alexander VII, and other popes. The present practice is based upon the constitution Sollicita ac provida of Benedict XIV (July 10, 1753). The maintenance and extension of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum was intrusted to a special standing committee of cardinals, the Congregation of the Index, which from time to time publishes new editions (the latest, Turin, 1895). There is also an Index Librorum Expurgatorum, containing books which are tolerated after the excision of certain passages, and another Librorum Expurgandorum, of those which are still in need of such partial expurgation. The prohibition to read or possess books thus forbidden is binding upon all Roman Catholics, though in special cases dispensations from it may be obtained. The most recent regulation of the whole matter was made by the bull Officiorum ac Munerum of Leo XIII, Jan. 25, 1897.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. II, art. “Censorship and Prohibition of Books,” p. 493. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company.SBBS 108.3

Censorship of Books, Index Defined.—Index of Prohibited Books, or simply Index, is used in a restricted sense to signify the exact list or catalogue of books the reading of which is forbidden to Catholics by the highest ecclesiastical authority. This list forms the second and larger part of the codex entitled Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which contains the entire ecclesiastical legislation relating to books....SBBS 108.4

A book is prohibited or put on the Index by decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Roman Inquisition, of the Sacred Office, or of the Index, which decree, though approved by the Pope (in formâ communi), always remains a purely congregational decree. It need scarcely be mentioned that the Pope alone, without having recourse to any of the congregations, may put a book on the Index, either by issuing a bull or a brief, or in any other way he chooses.... With regard to the Congregation of the Index, however, Pius X, when reorganizing the Roman Curia by the Constitution “Sapienti consilio” (29 June, 1908), decreed as follows: “Henceforth it will be the task of this Sacred Congregation not only to examine carefully the books denounced to it, to prohibit them if necessary, and to grant permission for reading forbidden books, but also to supervise, ex officio, books that are being published, and to pass sentence on sucn as deserve to be prohibited.” ...SBBS 108.5

The last and best edition of the Index, published by Leo XIII (Rome, 1900) and now in force, was reprinted in 1901, and again under Pius X in 1904 and 1907.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, art. “Censorship of Books,” pp. 721, 722. New York: Robert Appleton Company.SBBS 109.1

Censorship of Books.—Numerous editions of the Index [Librorum Prohibitorum] have appeared from time to time. That issued under Benedict XIV (Rome, 1744) contains between nine and ten thousand entries of books and authors, alphabetically arranged; of these about one third are cross-references. Prefixed to it are the ten rules sanctioned by the Council of Trent, of which the tenor is as follows: The first rule orders that all books condemned by popes or general councils before 1515, which were not contained in that Index, should be reputed to be condemned in such sort as they were formerly condemned. The second rule prohibits all the works of heresiarchs, such as Luther and Calvin, and those works by heretical authors which treat of religion; their other works to be allowed after examination. The third and fourth rules relate to versions of the Scripture, and define the classes of persons to whom the reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue may be permitted. The fifth allows the circulation, after expurgation, of lexicons and other works of reference compiled by heretics. The sixth relates to books of controversy. The seventh orders that all obscene books be absolutely prohibited, except ancient books written by heathens, which were tolerated “propter sermonis elegantiam et proprietatem,” but were not to be used in teaching boys. The eighth rule is upon methods of expurgation. The ninth prohibits books of magic and judicial astrology; but “theories and natural observations published for the sake of furthering navigation, agriculture, or the medical art are permitted.” The tenth relates to printing, introducing, having, and circulating books. Persons reading prohibited books incur excommunication forthwith (statim).—A Catholic Dictionary, William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold (R. C.), p. 481. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1893.SBBS 109.2

Censorship of Books, Classifications of the Index.—The first list of forbidden books was drawn up by the Theological Faculty of Paris, in 1554, and the first list of this kind which had the sanction of law was the one promulgated in Spain in 1558 by Philip 2. Subsequent to this decree, a much larger Index was authorized in 1559 by Paul IV, and possessed a threefold classification: (1) The works of authors whose complete writings, also on secular subjects, were forbidden; (2) certain particular writings of authors whose remaining productions were not prohibited; and (3) anonymous writings, religious and otherwise, including every publication of that kind subsequent to the year 1519. Among these productions were many which did not touch upon the subject of religion and had been in the hands of the learned for hundreds of years, and there were some books among them which had been commended by former popes, as, for example, the “Commentary on the New Testament,” by Erasmus, which was approved on Sept. 10, 1518, in a brief by Pope Leo X. The Bishop of Badajor suggested a fivefold classification of the Index: (1) Heretical books, which were to be burned; (2) anonymous books, which were to be allowed when unobjectionable; (3) books of mixed content, which were to be expurgated; (4) translations of the Holy Scriptures into the vernacular, and prayer books, which were to be forbidden or allowed, according to their character; (5) books on magic, black art, and fortune telling.—“Modernism and the Reformation,” John Benjamin Rust, Ph. D., D. D., p. 175. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company.SBBS 109.3

Ceremonial Law, Contrasted with Moral Law.—See Law, Ceremonial, 280; Law of God, 284, 285.SBBS 110.1

Charlemagne.—See Holy Roman Empire, 213; Rome, Its Barbarian Invaders, 453, 454, 456; Sunday Laws, 540; Temporal Power of the Pope, 549.SBBS 110.2

Child Preachers.—See Advent, Second, 18, 19.SBBS 110.3

Christ, Date of Crucifixion of.—See Seventy Weeks.SBBS 110.4

Chronology.—See Daniel, 129-131; Ptolemy’s Canon; Seventy Weeks.SBBS 110.5

Church, Meaning of.—The church of Christ, therefore, is a body of which the Spirit of Jesus is the soul. It is a company of Christlike men and women, whom the Holy Spirit has called, enlightened, and sanctified through the preaching of the word; who are encouraged to look forward to a glorious future prepared for the people of God; and who, meanwhile, manifest their faith in all manner of loving services done to their fellow believers.SBBS 110.6

The church is therefore in some sense invisible. Its secret is its hidden fellowship with Jesus. Its roots penetrate the unseen, and draw from thence the nourishment needed to sustain its life. But it is a visible society, and can be seen wherever the word of God is faithfully proclaimed, and wherever faith is manifested in testimony and in bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit.SBBS 110.7

This is the essential mode of describing the church which has found place in the Reformation creeds. Some vary in the ways in which they express the thought; some do not sufficiently distinguish, in words at least, between what the church is and what it has, between what makes its being and what is included in its well-being. But in all there are the two thoughts that the church is made visible by the two fundamental things-the proclamation of the word and the manifestation of faith.—“A History of the Reformation,” Thomas M. Lindsay, M. A., D. D., p. 485. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906.SBBS 110.8

Church, Defined by Bellarmine.—A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth.—“De Ecclesia Militante” (R. C.), Tom. II, lib. 3, cap. 2 (On the Church Militant, Vol. II, book 3, chap. 2).SBBS 110.9

Church, Defined in the Bull “Unam Sanctam.”—That there is one holy catholic and apostolic church we are impelled by our faith to believe and to hold-this we do firmly believe and openly confess-and outside of this there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.... Therefore, in this one and only church there is one body and one head,-not two heads as if it were a monster,-namely, Christ and Christ’s vicar, Peter and Peter’s successor.—Corpus Juris Canonici, Extravagantes Communes, book 1, title 8, ch. 1.SBBS 110.10

Note.—This declaration in the bull of Boniface VIII had reference, not to the claims of a rival pope, nor to a temporary dual headship, such as occasionally existed, but to what Boniface regarded as usurpations of the papal prerogative by Philip the Fair of France, which, had they been admitted, would have constituted him, if not the head, at least another, or second, head of the church.—Eds.SBBS 111.1

Church, Roman Catholic Idea of.—The Roman idea of a church was that it was a visible body in communion with the Roman see, and in which the ministers derived their whole authority through that see. For this conception the reformed principle substituted at once the idea which is expressed in the Augsburg Confession, ... that the visible church is a congregation of faithful or believing men, “in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.” It was also recognized in all Reformed Churches, including the English Church as represented even by such men as Laud and Cosin, that episcopal orders, however desirable, were not essential for that due ministration. On all hands, therefore, within the Reformed communions, whether in Germany, Switzerland, France, or England, it was acknowledged that a true church might subsist, although the immediate and regular connection of its ministry with the ancient episcopal succession was broken.—“Principles of the Reformation,” Rev. Henry Wace, D. D., pp. 103, 104. New York: American Tract Society.SBBS 111.2

Church, Head of Roman.—We define ... that the Roman Pontiff himself ... is the head of the whole church.—“The Most Holy Councils,” Labbe and Cossart, Vol. XIII, col. 1167.SBBS 111.3

Church, Historical Notes on the.—The word “church” (from Greek kyriakon, “the Lord’s,” i. e., “house” or “body”) meant in original Christian usage either the universal body of Christian believers or a local congregation of believers. In the Romance languages the idea is expressed by a word from another root (Fr. eglise, Ital. chiesa, from Greek ekklçsia “the [body] called together” or “called out”). The Old Testament had two words to express the idea, edhah and kahal (Leviticus 4:13, 14), both meaning “assembly,” the latter implying a distinctly religious object.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. III, p. 77.SBBS 111.4

In the West, on the other hand, the definite organization of the church at large took shape in the papal monarchy; the further history of Catholicism and its idea of the church is really a history of the Roman primacy....SBBS 111.5

The first medieval Christian body which, while holding fast to the general Christian faith, abandoned that doctrine of the church sketched above [the Roman Catholic view], was the Waldenses. They considered themselves members of the church of Christ and partakers of his salvation, in spite of their exclusion from organized Christendom, recognizing at the same time a “church of Christ” within the organization whose heads were hostile to them. There is not, however, in their teaching any clear definition of the nature of the church or any new principle in reference to it.SBBS 111.6

The first theologian to bring forward a conception of the church radically opposed to that which had been developing was Wycliffe; and Huss followed him in it. According to him the church is the “totality of the predestinated; “there, as in his doctrine of grace, he followed Augustine, but took a standpoint contrary as well to Augustine’s as to that of later Catholicism in his account of the institutions and means of grace by which God communicates the blessings of salvation to the predestined, excluding from them the polity of priest, bishop, and pope. He denied the divine institution both of papal primacy and of the episcopate as distinct from the presbyterate, and attributed infallible authority to the Scriptures alone. The idea of both Wycliffe and Huss was thus not of an actually existing body of united associates, but merely the total of predestined Christians who at any time are living holy lives, scattered among those who are not predestined, together with those who are predestined but not yet converted, and the faithful who have passed away.SBBS 111.7

Luther defended Wycliffe’s definition at the Leipsic Disputation of 1519, in spite of its condemnation by the Council of Constance. But his own idea was that the real nature of the church was defined by the words following its mention in the creed-“the communion of saints,” taking the word “saints” in its Pauline sense. These (although sin may still cling to them) are sanctified by God through his word and sacraments-sacraments not depending upon an organized, episcopally ordained clergy, but committed to the church as a whole; it is their faith, called forth by the word of God, which makes them righteous and accepted members of Christ and heirs of eternal life. Thus the Lutheran and, in general, the Calvinist conception of the church depended from the first upon the doctrine of justification by faith. In harmony with Luther’s teaching, the Augsburg Confession defines the church as “the congregation of saints in which the gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments are rightly administered.” In one sense the church is invisible, since the earthly eye cannot tell who has true faith and in this sense is a “saint,” but in another it is visible, since it has its being here in outward and visible vital forms, ordained by God, in which those who are only “saints “in appearance have an external share.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. III, pp. 81-83. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company.SBBS 112.1

Church, Roman Catholic, Claims to Make Possible Union with Christ.—Catholics believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is alone the great center of the Christian religion, the fountain of all grace, virtue, and merit, as in the natural world (if the comparison may be allowed) the sun is the center and enlivening source of light, heat, and growth.SBBS 112.2

This grand truth they believe to be the vital, essential part of Christianity, “for other foundation no man can lay but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus.” 1 Corinthians 3:11.SBBS 112.3

They believe that union with Jesus Christ is the highest and noblest aim of man, and that only the Holy Catholic Church supplies the means for this union with Jesus Christ.—“Catholic Belief,” Rev. Joseph Faa di Bruno, D. D. (R. C.), p. 33. New York: Benziger Brothers.SBBS 112.4

Church, Roman Catholic View of the Teaching Authority of.—The doctrinal contents of Scripture she [the church] designates in the general spirit of Scripture. Hence the earliest ecumenical councils did not even adduce any particular Scriptural texts in support of their dogmatic decrees; and Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the church, that even a Scriptural proof in favor of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined. The deepest reason for this conduct of the church lies in the indisputable truth that she was not founded by Holy Writ, but already existed before its several parts appeared. The certainty which she has of the truth of her own doctrines, is an immediate one, for she received her dogmas from the lips of Christ and the apostles; and by the power of the divine Spirit, they are indelibly stamped on her consciousness, or as Irenaus expresses it, on her heart.SBBS 112.5

If the church were to endeavor, by learned investigation, to seek her doctrines, she would fall into the most absurd inconsistency, and annihilate her very self.—“ Symbolism,” John Adam Moehler, D. D. (R. C.), p. 296. London: Thomas Baker, 1906.SBBS 113.1

Church, The Catholic, First Use of the Combination.—The combination “the Catholic Church “is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaans, written about the year 110.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III, art. “Catholic,” p. 449. New York: Robert Appleton Company.SBBS 113.2

Church and State.—See Holy Roman Empire; Religious Liberty; Sunday Laws.SBBS 113.3

Church of England.—See Advent, Second, 16; Tradition, 563.SBBS 113.4

Church of Rome, Newman on.—We must take and deal with things as they are, not as they pretend to be. If we are induced to believe the professions of Rome, and make advances towards her as if a sister or a mother church, which in theory she is, we shall find too late that we are in the arms of a pitiless and unnatural relative, who will but triumph in the arts which have inveigled us within her reach. No; dismissing the dreams which the romance of early church history and the high theory of Catholicism will raise in the guileless and inexperienced mind, let us be sure that she is our enemy, and will do us a mischief when she can. In saying and acting on this conviction, we need not depart from Christian charity towards her. We must deal with her as we would towards a friend who is visited by derangement; in great affliction, with all affectionate tender thoughts, with tearful regret and a broken heart, but still with a steady eye and a firm hand. For in truth she is a church beside herself, abounding in noble gifts and rightful titles, but unable to use them religiously; crafty, obstinate, wilful, malicious, cruel, unnatural, as madmen are. Or rather, she may be said to resemble a demoniac; possessed with principles, thoughts, and tendencies not her own, in outward form and in outward powers what God made her, but ruled within by an inexorable spirit, who is sovereign in his management over her, and most subtle and most successful in the use of her gifts. Thus she is her real self only in name, and, till God vouchsafe to restore her, we must treat her as if she were that evil one which governs her.—“Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church,” John Henry Newman, B. D., pp. 100, 101. London: J. G. & F. Rivington, 1837.SBBS 113.5

Note.—This was written before Cardinal Newman joined the Roman Catholic Church.—Eds.SBBS 113.6

Church of Rome, Roman Catholic Teaching Concerning Salvation Outside of.—SBBS 113.7

8. Who, then, will be saved?SBBS 113.8

Christ has solemnly declared that only those will be saved, who have done God’s will on earth as explained, not by private interpretation, but by the infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church....SBBS 113.9

10. Must, then, all who wish to be saved, die united to the Catholic Church?SBBS 113.10

All those who wish to be saved, must die united to the Catholic Church; for out of her there is no salvation....SBBS 113.11

11. What did St. Augustine and the other bishops of Africa, at the Council of Zirta, in 412, say about the salvation of those who die out of the Roman Catholic Church?SBBS 113.12

“Whosoever,” they said, “is separated from the Catholic Church, however commendable in his own opinion his life may be, he shall for the very reason that he is separated from the union of Christ not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36....SBBS 114.1

13. Who are out of the pale of the Roman Catholic Church?SBBS 114.2

Out of the pale of the Roman Catholic Church are all unbaptized and all excommunicated persons, all apostates, unbelievers, and heretics....SBBS 114.3

28. What is a heretic?SBBS 114.4

A heretic is any baptized person, professing Christianity, and choosing for himself what to believe and what not to believe as he pleases, in obstinate opposition to any particular truth which he knows is taught by the Catholic Church as a truth revealed by God. [According to this definition all intelligent Protestants are heretics, and this is asserted in question 30.—Eds.] ...SBBS 114.5

30. How many kinds of heretics (Protestants) are there?SBBS 114.6

There are three kinds of heretics:SBBS 114.7

(1) Those who are guilty of the sin of heresy;SBBS 114.8

(2) Those who are not guilty of the sin of heresy, but commit other grievous sins;SBBS 114.9

(3) Those who are not guilty of the sin of heresy and live up to the dictates of their conscience....SBBS 114.10

38. Can a Christian be saved, who has left the true church of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church?SBBS 114.11

No; because the church of Christ is the kingdom of God on earth, and he who leaves that kingdom, shuts himself out from the kingdom of Christ in heaven.SBBS 114.12

39. Have Protestants left the true church of Christ?SBBS 114.13

Protestants left the true church of Christ, in their founders, who left the Catholic Church, either through pride, or through the passion of lust and covetousness....SBBS 114.14

46. But is it not a very uncharitable doctrine to say that no one can be saved out of the church?SBBS 114.15

On the contrary, it is a very great act of charity to assert most emphatically, that out of the Catholic Church there is no salvation possible; for Jesus Christ and his apostles have taught this doctrine in very plain language. He who sincerely seeks the truth, is glad to hear it and embrace it, in order to be saved.—“ Familiar Explanation of Catholic Doctrine,” Rev. M. M#uller (R. C.), pp. 163-179. New York: Benziger Brothers.SBBS 114.16

Church of Rome, Two Kinds of Teaching.—The Church of Rome as an organization has never tolerated individualism amongst its members. It at once affirms and denies the individual conscience, inasmuch as that conscience must ever be sought in the dogmas and direction of the Institution.SBBS 114.17

Now what are the teachings of the Institution? There are two distinct sets and headings. First: Those for the uninitiated, or the sheep. Second: Those for the initiated, or the shepherds. In other words, there is exoteric and esoteric Catholicism.SBBS 114.18

With the exoteric doctrines it finds means to defend itself against attack, and retreats always behind the bulwarks of Christian ethics. It proclaims charity, sincerity, justice, altruism, professes from the pulpits the gospel of Jesus Christ, and thus deludes its adversaries, who fall back disheartened, and abandon a systematic attack.SBBS 114.19

Members of the Roman communion who are the cause of recurring scandals, are declared lamentable exceptions to the universal virtuous living of the priesthood; they are acknowledged as the stray sheep, whom the ever-loving “mother church” would fain recover.SBBS 114.20

The curious searcher, however, who is desirous of reconciling the history of the Roman Church with its avowed doctrine, cannot be satisfied with such inconsistency, and it must, in time, become clear to him that only through the existence of an esoteric doctrine can such grave discrepancies be explained.—“The Double Doctrine of the Church of Rome,” Baroness von Zedtwitz, pp. 18-20. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company.SBBS 115.1

Cicero, Prophecy of.—See Advent, First, 5.SBBS 115.2

Cigarettes.—See Health and Temperance, 199, 200, 201.SBBS 115.3

Clemens Alexandrinus.—See Fathers, 169, 170.SBBS 115.4

Clemens Romanus (Clement I).—See Papacy, 332.SBBS 115.5

Clovis.—See Rome, Its Barbarian Invaders, 443, 444, 450, 454.SBBS 115.6

Coffee.—See Health and Temperance, 199.SBBS 115.7

Columbus.—See Increase of Knowledge, 223.SBBS 115.8

Coming of Christ.—See Advent, Second.SBBS 115.9

Conclave.—Strictly a room, or set of rooms, locked with a key; in this sense the word is now obsolete in English, though the New English Dictionary gives an example of its use so late as 1753.SBBS 115.10

Its present loose application to any private or close assembly, especially ecclesiastical, is derived from its technical application to the assembly of cardinals met for the election of the Pope.” “Each cardinal is accompanied by a clerk or secretary, known for this reason as a conclavist, and by one servant only. With the officials of the conclave, this makes about two hundred and fifty persons who enter the conclave and have no further communication with the outer world save by means of turning-boxes.... Within the conclave, the cardinals, alone in the common hall, usually the Sistine Chapel, proceed morning and evening to their double vote, the direct vote and the “accessit.”SBBS 115.11

Sometimes these sessions have been very numerous; for example, in 1740, Benedict XIV was only elected after 255 scrutinies [ballots]; on other occasions, however, and notably in the case of the last few popes, a well-defined majority has soon been evident, and there have been but few scrutinies. Each vote is immediately counted by three scrutators [tellers], appointed in rotation, the most minute precautions being taken to insure that the voting shall be secret and sincere. When one cardinal has at last obtained two thirds of the votes, the dean of the cardinals formally asks him whether he accepts his election, and what name he wishes to assume.SBBS 115.12

As soon as he has accepted, the first “obedience” or “adoration” takes place, and immediately after the first cardinal deacon goes to the Loggia of St. Peter’s and announces the great news to the assembled people. The conclave is dissolved; on the following day take place the two other “obediences,” and the election is officially announced to the various governments. If the Pope be not a bishop (Gregory XVI was not), he is then consecrated; and finally, a few days after his election, takes place the coronation, from which the pontificate is officially dated. The Pope then receives the tiara with the triple crown, the sign of his supreme spiritual authority. The ceremony of the coronation goes back to the ninth century, and the tiara, in the form of a high conical cap, is equally ancient.—The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. VI. art. “Conclave,” pp. 827, 829, 11th edition.SBBS 115.13

Confession, Protestant View of.—Confession of sins is an acknowledgment of sin, which may be made by a Christian either to God alone, to a fellow Christian, or to one who holds an ecclesiastical office. Confession as an act prescribed or recommended by the church is made in accordance with the free decision of the individual (voluntary private confession), in compliance with special rules of church training and discipline (confession of catechumens and penitents), and in conformity with general regulations binding on all (a prescribed confession, either of individuals or the congregation as a whole). The present article is confined to the last-named form; its end is to attain absolution.SBBS 116.1

The New Testament knows nothing of confession as a formal institution, James 5:16 referring to the close association with the brethren, although the words of Jesus in Luke 5:20; 7:48, may be compared to ecclesiastical absolution. Individual confession as a part of ecclesiastical discipline was, of course, customary in ancient times, and also served as a voluntary act of a distressed sinner. The confession of sin and proclamation of pardon were likewise customary in the service of the ancient church. But that confession existed in the earliest time as an established ecclesiastical institution is not proved by such isolated instances as are occasionally met with.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. III, art. “Confession,” p. 221.SBBS 116.2

Confession, Roman Catholic View of.—Confession is the avowal of one’s own sins made to a duly authorized priest for the purpose of obtaining their forgiveness through the power of the keys.... How firmly rooted in the Catholic mind is the belief in the efficacy and necessity of confession, appears clearly from the fact that the sacrament of penance endures in the church after the countless attacks to which it has been subjected during the last four centuries. If at the Reformation or since the church could have surrendered a doctrine or abandoned a practice for the sake of peace and to soften a “hard saying,” confession would have been the first to disappear. Yet it is precisely during this period that the church has defined in the most exact terms the nature of penance and most vigorously insisted on the necessity of confession....SBBS 116.3

As the Council of Trent affirms, “the church did not through the Lateran Council prescribe that the faithful of Christ should confess-a thing which it knew to be by divine right necessary and established-but that the precept of confessing at least once a year should be complied with by all and every one when they reached the age of discretion” (Session XIV, c. 5). The Lateran edict presupposed the necessity of confession as an article of Catholic belief, and laid down a law as to the minimum frequency of confession-at least once a year....SBBS 116.4

What Sins are to be Confessed.-Among the propositions condemned by the Council of Trent is the following: “That to obtain forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of penance, it is not necessary by divine law to confess each and every mortal sin which is called to mind by due and careful examination, to confess even hidden sins and those that are against the last two precepts of the decalogue, together with the circumstances that change the specific nature of the sin; such confession is only useful for the instruction and consolation of the penitent, and of old was practised merely in order to impose canonical satisfaction” (Can. de panit., vii)....SBBS 116.5

Satisfaction.-As stated above, the absolution given by the priest to a penitent who confesses his sins with the proper dispositions remits both the guilt and the eternal punishment. (of mortal sin). There remains, however, some indebtedness to divine justice which must be canceled here or hereafter. In order to have it canceled here, the penitent receives from his confessor what is usually called his “penance,” usually in the form of certain prayers which he is to say, or of certain actions which he is to perform, such as visits to a church, the stations of the cross, etc. Almsdeeds, fasting, and prayer are the chief means of satisfaction, but other penitential works may also be enjoined.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XI, art. “Penance,” pp. 625-628.SBBS 116.6

Confession, Auricular, Established by Innocent III.—Not only did Innocent III thus provide himself with an ecclesiastical militia suited to meet the obviously impending insurrection, he increased his power greatly but insidiously by the formal introduction of auricular confession. It was by the fourth Lateran Council that the necessity of auricular confession was first formally established. Its aim was that no heretic should escape, and that the absent priest should be paramount even in the domestic circle. In none but a most degraded and superstitious society can such an infamous institution be tolerated. It invades the sacred privacy of life-makes a man’s wife, children, and servants his spies and accusers. When any religious system stands in need of such a social immorality, we may be sure that it is irrecoverably diseased, and hastening to its end.SBBS 117.1

Auricular confession led to an increasing necessity for casuistry, though that science was not fully developed until the time of the Jesuits, when it gave rise to an extensive literature, with a lax system and a false morality, guiding the penitent rather with a view to his usefulness to the church than to his own reformation, and not hesitating at singular indecencies in its portion having reference to married life.—“ History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,” John William Draper, M. D., LL. D., Vol. II, pp. 65, 66. New York: Harper & Brothers.SBBS 117.2

Confession.—See Keys, 279.SBBS 117.3

Confirmation, Canons on.—Canon I. If any one saith that the confirmation of those who have been baptized is an idle ceremony, and not rather a true and proper sacrament; or that of old it was nothing more than a kind of catechism whereby they who were near adolescence gave an account of their faith in the face of the church; let him be anathema.SBBS 117.4

Canon II. If any one saith that they who ascribe any virtue to the sacred chrism of confirmation offer an outrage to the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.—“ Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,” p. 66. New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1912.SBBS 117.5

Confirmation.—Confirmation, a sacrament in which the Holy Ghost is given to those already baptized in order to make them strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ.... With reference to its effect it is the “Sacrament of the Holy Ghost,” the “Sacrament of the Seal” (signaculum, sigillum, [Greek word, transliterated sphragis]. From the external rite it is known as the “imposition of hands” ([Greek words, transliterated “epithesis cheiron”]), or as “anointing with chrism” (unctio, chrismatio, [Greek words, transliterated “chrisma, muron]). The names at present in use are, for the Western Church, confirmatio, and for the Greek, [Greek words, transliterated “mo muron].SBBS 117.6

In the Western Church the sacrament is usually administered by the bishop. At the beginning of the ceremony there is a general imposition of hands, the bishop meantime praying that the Holy Ghost may come down upon those who have already been regenerated: “Send forth upon them thy sevenfold Spirit, the Holy Paraclete.” He then anoints the forehead of each with chrism, saying: “I sign thee with the sign of the cross and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” Finally he gives each a slight blow on the cheek, saying: “Peace be with thee.” A prayer is added that the Holy Spirit may dwell in the hearts of those who have been confirmed, and the rite closes with the bishop’s blessing.SBBS 117.7

The Eastern Church omits the imposition of hands and the prayer at the beginning, and accompanies the anointing with the words: “The sign [or seal] of the gift of the Holy Ghost.” These several actions symbolize the nature and purpose of the sacrament: the anointing signifies the strength given for the spiritual conflict; the balsam contained in the chrism, the fragrance of virtue and the good odor of Christ; the sign of the cross on the forehead, the courage to confess Christ before all men; the imposition of hands and the blow on the cheek, enrolment in the service of Christ, which brings true peace to the soul.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, art. “Confirmation,” p. 215.SBBS 118.1

Constantine. -See Apostasy, 35, 36, 37; Apostolic Christianity, 38; Councils, 119; Eastern Question, 148; Forgeries, 170, 171; Heretics, 208, 209; Inquisition, 251; Paganism, 323; Sabbath, Change of, 473; Sunday, 537, 538; Sunday Laws, 538, 539.SBBS 118.2

Constitution of the United States.—See Religious Liberty, 414.SBBS 118.3

Copernican Theory.—See Galileo.SBBS 118.4

Corpus Juris Canonici.—See Canon Law.SBBS 118.5

Council of Trent, Its Relation to Protestantism.—The work of the Council of Trent completed the preparations of the Roman Church for the great fight with Protestantism. Armed at all points she took the field against her foe, under the command too of a peerless captain. Pope Pius IV did not long outlive the assembly which he had so vigorously wielded, and in 1565 made way for Pius V (Michael Ghislieri), the perfect and pattern pontiff. In him the Roman Church enjoyed a fervent, vigilant, devoted, laborious, self-denying, and consummate head; in him the Reformation encountered a watchful, unweary, implacable, and merciless enemy....SBBS 118.6

Amidst the multitude of pontifical cares and duties, all diligently attended to and exactly fulfilled, he gave closest heed to the supreme care and duty of extirpating heretics, and as the head of the Roman Church outdid his deeds and outnumbered his trophies as the head of the Holy Office. He conducted the operations of the Roman Catholic reaction with great skill, astonishing energy, and much success. He carried the war against Protestantism into every land and pressed into the service every mode of assault, every form of seduction and violence; teaching, preaching, imprisonment and torture, fire and sword, Jesuits, inquisitors, and soldiers.—“ The Papal Drama,” Thomas H. Gill, pp. 245, 246. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1866.SBBS 118.7

Councils, Reasons for Calling.—Six grounds for the convocation of great councils, particularly ecumenical councils, are generally enumerated:SBBS 118.8

1. When a dangerous heresy or schism has arisen.SBBS 118.9

2. When two popes oppose each other, and it is doubtful which is the true one.SBBS 118.10

3. When the question is, whether to decide upon some great and universal undertaking against the enemies of the Christian name.SBBS 118.11

4. When the Pope is suspected of heresy or of other serious faults.SBBS 119.1

5. When the cardinals have been unable or unwilling to undertake the election of a pope.SBBS 119.2

6. When it is a question of the reformation of the church, in its head and members.—“A History of the Christian Councils,” Rev. Charles Joseph Hefele, D. D. (R. C.), To A. D. 325 (first volume), p. 5. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872.SBBS 119.3

Councils, Confirmation of Decrees of.—The decrees of the ancient ecumenical councils were confirmed by the emperors and by the popes; those of the later councils by the popes alone. On the subject of the confirmation of the emperors we have the following facts:SBBS 119.4

1. Constantine the Great solemnly confirmed the Nicene Creed immediately after it had been drawn up by the council, and he threatened such as would not subscribe it with exile. At the conclusion of the synod he raised all the decrees of the assembly to the position of laws of the empire; declared them to be divinely inspired; and in several edicts still partially extant, he required that they should be most faith-fully observed by all his subjects.SBBS 119.5

2. The second ecumenical council expressly asked for the confirmation of the emperor Theodosius the Great, and he responded to the wishes of the assembly by an edict dated the 30th July, 381.SBBS 119.6

3. The case of the third ecumenical council, which was held at Ephesus, was peculiar. The emperor Theodosius II had first been on the heretical side, but he was brought to acknowledge by degrees that the orthodox part of the bishops assembled at Ephesus formed the true synod. However, he did not in a general way give his confirmation to the decrees of the council, because he would not approve of the deposition and exclusion pronounced by the council against the bishops of the party of Antioch. Subsequently, however, when Cyril and John of Antioch were reconciled, and when the party of Antioch itself had acknowledged the Council of Ephesus, the emperor sanctioned this reconciliation by a special decree, threatened all who should disturb the peace; and by exiling Nestorius, and by commanding all the Nestorian writings to be burnt, he confirmed the principal decision given by the Council of Ephesus.SBBS 119.7

4. The emperor Marcian consented to the doctrinal decrees of the fourth ecumenical council, held at Chalcedon, by publishing four edicts on the 7th February, 13th March, 6th and 28th July, 452.SBBS 119.8

5. The close relations existing between the fifth ecumenical council and the emperor Justinian are well known. This council merely carried out and sanctioned what the emperor had before thought necessary and decided; and it bowed so obsequiously to his wishes that Pope Vigilius would have nothing to do with it. The emperor Justinian sanctioned the decrees pronounced by the council, by sending an official to the seventh session, and he afterwards used every endeavor to obtain the approbation of Pope Vigilius for this council.SBBS 119.9

6. The emperor Constantine Pogonatus confirmed the decrees of the sixth council, first by signing them (ultimo loco, as we have seen); but he sanctioned them also by a very long edict, which Hardouin has preserved.SBBS 119.10

7. In the last session of the seventh ecumenical council, the empress Irene, with her son, signed the decrees made in the preceding sessions, and thus gave them the imperial sanction. It is not known whether she afterwards promulgated an especial decree to the same effect.SBBS 119.11

8. The emperor Basil the Macedonian and his sons signed the acts of the eighth ecumenical council. His signature followed that of the patriarchs, and preceded that of the other bishops. In 870 he also published an especial edict, making known his approval of the decrees of the council.SBBS 119.12

The papal confirmation of all these eight first ecumenical councils is not so clear and distinct.—Id., pp. 42-44.SBBS 120.1

Councils, Relation of the Pope to.—We see from these considerations, of what value the sanction of the Pope is to the decrees of a council. Until the Pope has sanctioned these decrees, the assembly of bishops which formed them cannot pretend to the authority belonging to an ecumenical council, however great a number of bishops may compose it; for there cannot be an ecumenical council without union with the Pope.SBBS 120.2

This sanction of the Pope is also necessary for insuring infallibility to the decisions of the council. According to Catholic doctrine, this prerogative can be claimed only for the decisions of ecumenical councils, and only for their decisions in rebus fidei et morum [in matters of faith and morals], not for purely disciplinary decrees.—Id., p. 52.SBBS 120.3

Councils, List of the Ecumenical.—Here, then, we offer a corrected table of the ecumenical councils:SBBS 120.4

1. That of Nicaa in 325.SBBS 120.5

2. The first of Constantinople in 381.SBBS 120.6

3. That of Ephesus in 431.SBBS 120.7

4. That of Chalcedon in 451.SBBS 120.8

5. The second of Constantinople in 553.SBBS 120.9

6. The third of Constantinople in 680.SBBS 120.10

7. The second of Nicaa in 787.SBBS 120.11

8. The fourth of Constantinople in 869.SBBS 120.12

9. The first of Lateran in 1123.SBBS 120.13

10. The second of Lateran in 1139.SBBS 120.14

11. The third of Lateran in 1179.SBBS 120.15

12. The fourth of Lateran in 1215.SBBS 120.16

13. The first of Lyons in 1245.SBBS 120.17

14. The second of Lyons in 1274.SBBS 120.18

15. That of Vienne in 1311.SBBS 120.19

16. The Council of Constance, from 1414 to 1418; that is to say: (a) The latter sessions presided over by Martin V (sessions 41-45 inclusive); (b) in the former sessions all the decrees sanctioned by Pope Martin V, that is, those concerning the faith, and which were given conciliariter.SBBS 120.20

17. The Council of Basle, from the year 1431; that is to say: (a) The twenty-five first sessions, until the translation of the council to Ferrara by Eugene IV; (b) in these twenty-five sessions the decrees concerning the extinction of heresy, the pacification of Christendom, and the general reformation of the church in its head and in its members, and which, besides, do not strike at the authority of the apostolic chair; in a word, those decrees which were afterwards sanctioned by Pope Eugene IV.SBBS 120.21

17b. The assemblies held at Ferrara and at Florence (1438-42) cannot be considered as forming a separate ecumenical council. They were merely the continuation of the Council of Basle, which was transferred to Ferrara by Eugene IV on the 8th January, 1438, and from thence to Florence in January, 1439.SBBS 120.22

18. The fifth of Lateran, 1512-17.SBBS 120.23

19. The Council of Trent, 1545-63.—Id., pp. 63, 64.SBBS 120.24

The list of ecumenical councils as accepted by the Roman Catholic Church is as follows: 1. Nicaa I, 325; 2. Constantinople I, 381; 3. Ephesus, 431; 4. Chalcedon, 451; 5. Constantinople II, 553; 6. Constantinople III (first Trullan), 680-681; 7. Nicaa II, 787; 8. Constantinople IV, 869; 9. Lateran I, 1123; 10. Lateran II, 1139; 11. Lateran III, 1179; 12. Lateran IV, 1215; 13. Lyons I, 1245; 14. Lyons II, 1274; 15. Vienne, 1311-12; 16. Constance, 1414-18; 17. Basel-Ferrara-Florence, 1431-42; 18. Lateran V, 1512-17; 19. Trent, 1545-63; 20. Vatican, 1869-70. The first seven of these are accepted by the Greeks, the others rejected; they also accept the second Trullan Council or Quinisextum, 692 (rejected by the West), considering it a continuation of the first Trullan or third Constantinople. The eighth general council of the Greeks was held in Constantinople in 879 and rejected by the Latins.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. III, art. “Councils and Synods,” p. 281, Note. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company.SBBS 121.1

Councils, Present Constitution of.—The principles now accepted are that these assemblies may only be called by the Pope and presided over by him or his delegates; that their membership is confined to the cardinals, bishops, vicars apostolic, generals of religious orders, and such dignitaries, to the exclusion of the laity; that the subjects discussed must be laid before them by the Pope, and their decisions confirmed by him. They are thus nothing more than assemblies of advisers about the Pope, with no independent power of their own.—Id., p. 282.SBBS 121.2

Councils, Vatican, Lord Acton on.—The Council of Trent impressed on the church the stamp of an intolerant age, and perpetuated by its decrees the spirit of an austere immorality. The ideas embodied in the Roman Inquisition became characteristic of a system which obeyed expediency by submitting to indefinite modification, but underwent no change of principle. Three centuries have so changed the world that the maxims with which the church resisted the Reformation have become her weakness and her reproach, and that which arrested her decline now arrests her progress. To break effectually with that tradition and eradicate its influence, nothing less is required than an authority equal to that by which it was imposed. The Vatican Council was the first sufficient occasion which Catholicism had enjoyed to reform, remodel, and adapt the work of Trent. This idea was present among the motives which caused it to be summoned.—“The History of Freedom,” John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (R. C.), pp. 493, 494. London: Macmillan & Co., 1909.SBBS 121.3

Before the council had been assembled a fortnight, a store of discontent had accumulated which it would have been easy to avoid. Every act of the Pope, the bull Multiplices, the declaration of censures, the text of the proposed decree, even the announcement that the council should be dissolved in case of his death, had seemed an injury or an insult to the episcopate. These measures undid the favorable effect of the caution with which the bishops had been received. They did what the dislike of infallibility alone would not have done. They broke the spell of veneration for Pius IX which fascinated the Catholic episcopate. The jealousy with which he guarded his prerogative in the appointment of officers, and of the great commission, the pressure during the elections, the prohibition of national meetings, the refusal to hold the debates in a hall where they could be heard, irritated and alarmed many bishops. They suspected that they had been summoned for the very purpose they had indignantly denied,-to make the Papacy more absolute by abdicating in favor of the official prelature of Rome. Confidence gave way to a great despondency, and a state of feeling was aroused which prepared the way for actual opposition when the time should come.—Id., pp. 531, 532.SBBS 121.4

When the observations on infallibility which the bishops had sent in to the commission appeared in print, it seemed that the minority had burnt their ships. They affirmed that the dogma would put an end to the conversion of Protestants, that it would drive devout men out of the church and make Catholicism indefensible in controversy, that it would give governments apparent reason to doubt the fidelity of Catholics, and would give new authority to the theory of persecution and of the deposing power. They testified that it was unknown in many parts of the church, and was denied by the Fathers, so that neither perpetuity nor universality could be pleaded in its favor; and they declared it an absurd contradiction, founded on ignoble deceit, and incapable of being made an article of faith by pope or council. One bishop protested that he would die rather than proclaim it. Another thought it would be an act of suicide for the church.—Id., pp. 545, 546.SBBS 122.1

The debate on the several paragraphs lasted till the beginning of July, and the decree passed at length with eighty-eight dissentient votes. It was made known that the infallibility of the Pope would be promulgated in solemn session on the 18th, and that all who were present would be required to sign an act of submission.... It was resolved by a small majority that the opposition should renew its negative vote in writing, and should leave Rome in a body before the session. Some of the most conscientious and resolute adversaries of the dogma advised this course. Looking to the immediate future, they were persuaded that an irresistible reaction was at hand, and that the decrees of the Vatican Council would fade away and be dissolved by a power mighter than the episcopate and a process less perilous than schism. Their disbelief in the validity of its work was so profound that they were convinced that it would perish without violence, and they resolved to spare the Pope and themselves the indignity of a rupture. Their last manifesto, La derniere Heure, is an appeal for patience, an exhortation to rely on the guiding, healing hand of God. They deemed that they had assigned the course which was to save the church, by teaching the Catholics to reject a council which was neither legitimate in constitution, free in action, nor unanimous in doctrine, but to observe moderation in contesting an authority over which great catastrophes impend.—Id., pp. 549, 550.SBBS 122.2

Councils, Vatican, a Mark of the Age.—Few events of the nineteenth century stand out in bolder relief, and many will be forgotten when the Vatican Council will be remembered. It will mark this age as the Council of Nicaa and the Council of Trent now mark in history the fourth and the sixteenth centuries.—“The True Story of the Vatican Council,” Henry Edward Manning (R. C.), p. 2. London: Burns and Oates.SBBS 122.3

Councils, Vatican, a Remedy for Evils.—We have entered into a third period. The church began not with kings, but with the peoples of the world, and to the peoples, it may be, the church will once more return. The princes and governments and legislatures of the world were everywhere against it at its outset: they are so again. But the hostility of the nineteenth century is keener than the hostility of the first. Then the world had never believed in Christianity; now it is falling from it. But the church is the same, and can renew its relations with what-soever forms of civil life the world is pleased to fashion for itself. If, as political foresight has predicted, all nations are on their way to democracy, the church will know how to meet this new and strange aspect of the world. The high policy of wisdom by which the pontiffs held together the dynasties of the Middle Age[s] will know how to hold together the peoples who still believe. Such was the world on which Pius the Ninth was looking out when he conceived the thought of an ecumenical council. He saw the world which was once all Catholic tossed and harassed by the revolt of its intellect against the revelation of God, and of its will against his law; by the revolt of civil society against the sovereignty of God; and by the antichristian spirit which is driving on princes and governments towards antichristian revolutions. He to whom, in the words of St. John Chrysostom, the whole world was committed, saw in the Council of the Vatican the only adequate remedy for the world-wide evils of the nineteenth century.—Id., pp. 36, 37.SBBS 122.4

Councils, Vatican, Summary of Its Doings.—The chief importance of the Council of the Vatican lies in its decree on papal supremacy and infallibility. It settled the internal dissensions between ultra-montanism and Gallicanism, which struck at the root of the fundamental principle of authority; it destroyed the independence of the Episcopate, and made it a tool of the primacy; it crushed liberal Catholicism; it completed the system of papal absolutism; it raised the hitherto disputed opinion of papal infallibility to the dignity of a binding article of faith, which no Catholic can deny without loss of salvation. The Pope may now say not only, “I am the tradition” (La tradizione son’io), but also, ‘I am the church’ (L’église c’est moi)!-“Rome and the Newest Fashions in Religion,” W. E. Gladstone, p. 65. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1875.SBBS 123.1

Councils, Vatican, Submission to, Explained.—The following considerations sufficiently explain the fact of submission:SBBS 123.2

1. Many of the dissenting bishops were professedly anti-infallibilists, not from principle, but only from subordinate considerations of expediency, because they apprehended that the definition would provoke the hostility of secular governments, and inflict great injury on Catholic interests, especially in Protestant countries. Events have since proved that their apprehension was well founded.SBBS 123.3

2. All Roman bishops are under an oath of allegiance to the Pope, which binds them “to preserve, defend, increase, and advance the rights, honors, privileges, and authority of the Holy Roman Church, of our lord the Pope, and his successors.”SBBS 123.4

3. The minority bishops defended Episcopal infallibility against Papal infallibility. They claimed for themselves what they denied to the Pope. Admitting the infallibility of an ecumenical council, and forfeiting by their voluntary absence on the day of voting the right of their protest, they must either on their own theory accept the decision of the council, or give up their theory, cease to be Roman Catholics, and run the risk of a new schism.SBBS 123.5

At the same time this submission is an instructive lesson of the fearful spiritual despotism of the Papacy, which overrules the stubborn facts of history and the sacred claims of individual conscience. For the facts so clearly and forcibly brought out before and during the council by such men as Kenrick, Hefele, Rauscher, Maret, Schwarzenberg, and Dupanloup, have not changed, and can never be undone. On the one hand we find the results of a life-long, conscientious, and thorough study of the most learned divines of the Roman Church, on the other ignorance, prejudice, perversion, and defiance of Scripture and tradition; on the one hand we have history shaping theology, on the other theology ignoring or changing history; on the one hand the just exercise of reason, on the other blind submission, which destroys reason and conscience.—Id., p. 81.SBBS 123.6

Councils, Vatican, a Triumph for the Jesuits.—In the strife for the Pope’s temporal dominion the Jesuits were most zealous; and they were busy in the preparation and in the defense of the Syllabus. They were connected with every measure for which the Pope most cared; and their divines became the oracles of the Roman congregations. The papal infallibility had been always their favorite doctrine. Its adoption by the council promised to give to their theology official warrant, and to their order the supremacy in the church. They were now in power; and they snatched their opportunity when the council was convoked.—“The History of Freedom,” John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (R. C.), p. 498. London: Macmillan & Co., 1909.SBBS 124.1

Creed of Pope Pius IV.—I. I ... with a firm faith believe and profess all and every one of the things contained in the symbol of faith which the Holy Roman Church makes use of, namely,SBBS 124.2

I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible:SBBS 124.3

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;SBBS 124.4

who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;SBBS 124.5

he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; suffered and was buried;SBBS 124.6

and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures;SBBS 124.7

and ascended into heaven; sitteth on the right hand of the Father;SBBS 124.8

and he shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end:SBBS 124.9

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of life; who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the prophets:SBBS 124.10

and one holy catholic and apostolic church.SBBS 124.11

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins:SBBS 124.12

and I look for the resurrection of the dead;SBBS 124.13

and the life of the world to come. Amen.SBBS 124.14

II. I most steadfastly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the same church.SBBS 124.15

III. I also admit the Holy Scriptures according to that sense which our Holy Mother Church has held, and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.SBBS 124.16

IV. I also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the new law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all for every one, to wit: baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance and extreme unction, holy orders, and matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of these baptism, confirmation, and ordination cannot be reiterated without sacrilege. I also receive and admit the received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the aforesaid sacraments.SBBS 124.17

V. I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been defined and declared in the holy Council of Trent concerning original sin and justification.SBBS 125.1

VI. I profess likewise that in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a change of the whole essence of the bread into the body, and of the whole essence of the wine into the blood; which change the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation.SBBS 125.2

VII. I also confess that under either kind alone Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament.SBBS 125.3

VIII. I firmly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful.SBBS 125.4

Likewise ‘that the saints reigning with Christ are to be honored and invoked, and that they offer up prayers to God for us; and that their relics are to be held in veneration.SBBS 125.5

IX. I most firmly assert that the images of Christ and of the perpetual Virgin, the mother of God, and also of other saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due honor and veneration are to be given them.SBBS 125.6

I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people.SBBS 125.7

X. I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church as the mother and mistress of all churches, and I promise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter, prince of the apostles, and as the vicar of Jesus Christ.SBBS 125.8

XI. I likewise undoubtingly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and ecumenical councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent; and I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the church has condemned, rejected, and anathematized.SBBS 125.9

XII. I do at this present freely profess and truly hold this true Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved (salvus esse); and I promise most constantly to retain and confess the same entire and inviolate, with God’s assistance, to the end of my life. And I will take care, as far as in me lies, that it shall be held, taught, and preached by my subjects or by those the care of whom shall appertain to me in my office. This I promise, vow, and swear:-so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God.—“A History of Creeds and Confessions of Faith,” William A. Curtis, B. D., D. Litt., pp. 116-119. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912.SBBS 125.10

The creed of Pope Pius IV,-which contains twelve articles not merely unknown to the primitive church, but, for the most part, contrary to what it received from Christ and his apostles, and destructive of it,-with an express declaration that “out of this faith” so enforced “there is no salvation.”-“Letters to M. Gondon,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., p. 6. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848.SBBS 125.11

Pius IV now devoted his undivided attention to the completion of the labors of the Council of Trent.... Pius had the satisfaction of seeing the close of the long-continued council and the triumph of the Papacy over the antipapal tendencies which at times asserted themselves.SBBS 125.12

His name is immortally connected with the “Profession of Faith,” which must be sworn to by every one holding an ecclesiastical office.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, art. “Pius IV,” p. 129.SBBS 126.1

Creed of Pope Pius IV, Epitome of Doctrines of Trent.—This creed was adopted at the famous Council of Trent, held in the sixteenth century, when the doctrines of the Reformation were already widely diffused through Europe, and joyfully accepted and held by the young Protestant churches of many lands. The Council of Trent was indeed Rome’s reply to the Reformation. The newly recovered truths of the gospel were in its canons and decrees stigmatized as pestilent heresies, and all who held them accursed; and in opposition to them this creed was prepared and adopted.—“ Romanism and the Reformation,” H. Grattan Guinness, D. D., F. R. A. S., pp. 77, 78. London: J. Nisbet & Co., 1891.SBBS 126.2

This creed of Pope Pius IV is the authoritative papal epitome of the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent. The importance of this council “depends upon the considerations, that its records embody the solemn, formal, and official decision of the Church of Rome-which claims to be the one holy, catholic church of Christ-upon all the leading doctrines taught by the Reformers; that its decrees upon all doctrinal points are received by all Romanists as possessed of infallible authority; and that every popish priest is sworn to receive, profess, and maintain everything defined and declared by it.”-Id., p. 80.SBBS 126.3

Creed, Roman, Authoritative Statement of.—The Apostolic, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, and in general all the doctrinal decrees which the first four general councils have laid down in respect to the Trinity, and to the person of Christ, those Protestants who are faithful to their church, recognize in common with Catholics; and on this point the Lutherans, at the commencement of the Augsburg Confession, as well as in the Smalcald Articles, solemnly declared their belief. Not less explicit and public were the declarations of the Reformed. These formularies constitute the common property of the separate churches-the precious dowry which the overwise daughters carried away with them from the maternal house to their new settlements: they cannot accordingly be matter of discussion here, where we have only to speak of the disputes which occasioned the separation, but not of those remaining bonds of union to which the severed yet cling. We shall first speak of those writings wherein, at the springing up of dissensions, the Catholic Church declared her primitive domestic laws.SBBS 126.4

1. The Council of Trent.-Soon after the commencement of the controversies, of which Luther was the author, but whereof the cause lay hidden in the whole spirit of that age, the desire from many quarters was expressed and by the emperor Charles V warmly represented to the papal court, that a general council should undertake the settlement of these disputes. But the very complicated nature of the matters themselves, as well as numerous obstacles of a peculiar kind, which have seldom been impartially appreciated, did not permit the opening of the council earlier than the year 1545, under Pope Paul III. After several long interruptions, one of which lasted ten years, the council, in the year 1563, under the pontificate of Pius IV, was, on the close of the twenty-fifth session, happily concluded. The decrees regard dogma and discipline. Those regarding the former are set forth, partly in the form of treatises, separately entitled decretum or doctrina, partly in the form of short propositions, called canones. The former describe, sometimes very circumstantially, the Catholic doctrine; the latter declare in terse and pithy terms against the prevailing errors in doctrine. The disciplinary ordinances, with the title Decretum de Reformatione, will but rarely engage our attention.SBBS 126.5

2. The second writing, which we must here name, is the Tridentine, or Roman catechism, with the title Catechismus Romanus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini. The Fathers of the church, assembled at Trent, felt, themselves, the want of a good catechism for general use, although very serviceable works of that kind were then not altogether wanting. These, even during the celebration of the council, increased to a great quantity. None, however, gave perfect satisfaction; and it was resolved that one should be composed and published by the council itself. In fact, the council examined the outline of one prepared by a committee; but this, for want of practical utility and general intelligibleness, it was compelled to reject. At length, when the august assembly was on the point of being dissolved, it saw the necessity of renouncing the publication of a catechism, and of concurring in the proposal of the papal legates, to leave to the Holy See the preparation of such a work. The Holy Father selected for this important task three distinguished theologians, namely, Leonardo Marino, archbishop of Lanciano; Egidio Foscarari; bishop of Modena; and Francisco Fureiro, a Portuguese Dominican. They were assisted by three cardinals, and the celebrated philologist, Paulus Manutius, who was to give the last finish to the Latin diction and style of the work.SBBS 127.1

It appeared in the year 1566, under Pope Pius IV, and as a proof of its excellence, the various provinces of the church-some even by numerous synodal decrees-hastened publicly to introduce it. This favorable reception, in fact, it fully deserved, from the pure evangelical spirit which was found to pervade it, from the unction and clearness with which it was written, and from that happy exclusion of scholastic opinions, and avoidance of scholastic forms, which was generally desired. It was, nevertheless, designed merely as a manual for pastors in the ministry, and not to be a substitute for children’s catechisms, although the originally continuous form of its exposition was afterwards broken up into questions and answers.SBBS 127.2

But now it may be asked, whether it possess really a symbolical authority and symbolical character? This question cannot be answered precisely in the affirmative; for, in the first place, it was neither published nor sanctioned, but only occasioned, by the Council of Trent. Secondly, according to the destination prescribed by the Council of Trent, it was not, like regular formularies, to be made to oppose any theological error, but only to apply to practical use the symbol ^{7Symbol: ... 3. Theol. A formal and authoritative statement of religious doctrine; a confession of faith; creed.—New Standard Dictionary.} of faith already put forth. Hence, it answers other wants, and is accordingly constructed in a manner far different from public confessions of faith. This work, also, does not confine itself to those points of belief merely which, in opposition to the Protestant communities, the Catholic Church holds; but it embraces all the doctrines of the gospel; and hence it might be named (if the usage of speech and the peculiar objects of all formularies were compatible with such a denomination), a confession of the Christian church in opposition of all non-Christian creeds. If, for the reason first stated, the Roman catechism be devoid of a formal universal sanction of the church, so it wants, for the second reason assigned, all the internal qualities and the special aim which formularies are wont to have. In the third place, it is worthy of notice that on one occasion, in a controversy touching the relation of grace to freedom, the Jesuits asserted before the supreme authorities of the church, that the catechism possessed not a symbolical character; and no declaration in contradiction to their opinion was pronounced.SBBS 127.3

But, if we refuse to the Roman catechism the character of a public confession, we by no means deny it a great authority, which, even from the very circumstance that it was composed by order of the Council of Trent, undoubtedly belongs to it. In the next place, as we have said, it enjoys a very general approbation from the teaching church, and can especially exhibit the many recommendations which on various occasions the sovereign pontiffs have bestowed on it. We shall accordingly often refer to it, and use it as a very important voucher for Catholic doctrine; particularly where the declarations of the Council of Trent are not sufficiently ample and detailed.SBBS 128.1

3. The Professio Fidei Tridentina stands in a similar relation.SBBS 128.2

4. Shortly after the times of the Council of Trent, and in part during its celebration, there arose within the Catholic Church doctrinal controversies, referring mostly to the relation between grace and freedom, and to subjects of a kindred nature; and hence, even for our purposes, they are not without importance. For the settlement of the dispute, the apostolic see saw itself forced to issue several constitutions, wherein it was obliged to enter into the examination of the matter in debate. To these constitutions belong especially the bulls, published by Innocent X, against the five propositions of Jansenius, and the bull Unigenitus, by Clement XI. We may undoubtedly say of these constitutions, that they possess no symbolical character, for they only note certain propositions as erroneous, and do not set forth the doctrine opposed to the error, but suppose it to be already known. But a formulary of faith must not merely reject error; it must state doctrine. As the aforesaid bulls, however, rigidly adhere to the decisions of Trent, and are composed quite in their spirit; as they, moreover, have reference to many important questions, and settle, though only in a negative way, these questions in the sense of the above-named decrees; we shall occasionally recur to them, and illustrate by their aid many a Catholic dogma.SBBS 128.3

It is evident from what has been said, that the Catholic Church, in fact, has, in the matters in question, but one writing of a symbolical authority. All that, in any respect, may bear such a title, is only a deduction from this formulary, or a nearer definition, illustration, or application of its contents, or is in part only regulated by it, or in any case obtains a value only by agreement with it, and hence cannot, in point of dignity, bear a comparison with the original itself.—“Symbolism; or, Exposition of the Doctrinal Differences Between Catholics and Protestants,” John Adam Moehler, D. D. (R. C.), pp. 11-15. London: Thomas Baker, 1906.SBBS 128.4

Note.—The preface to the first edition of Dr. Moehler’s work is dated “Tübingen, 1832.” Since that time the creed of the Roman Church has been enlarged by the addition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, promulgated by Pope Pius IX. in 1854, and the canons and decrees of the Vatican Council, 1869-70. These added dogmas are now of the same authority as the canons and decrees of Trent.—Eds.SBBS 128.5

The doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are laid down in the ecumenical creeds, the acts of nineteen or twenty ecumenical councils, the bulls of the popes, and especially the Tridentine and Vatican standards. The principal authorities are the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent (1563), the Profession of the Tridentine Faith, commonly called the Creed of Pius IV (1564), the Roman Catechism (1566), the decree of the Immaculate Conception (1854), and the Vatican decrees on the Catholic faith and the infallibility of the Pope (1870). The best summary of the leading articles of the Roman faith is contained in the Creed of Pope Pius IV, which is binding upon all priests and public teachers, and which must be confessed by all converts.—Philip Schaff, D. D., in “New Universal Cyclopedia,” Johnson, Vol. III, art. “Roman Catholic Church,” part 2, p. 1702.SBBS 128.6

Creeds.—See Advent, Second, 10.SBBS 129.1

Crosus.—See Medo-Persia, 306.SBBS 129.2

Crucifixion of Christ, Date of.—See Seventy Weeks.SBBS 129.3

Cyprian.—See Fathers, 168.SBBS 129.4

Cyrus.—See Babylon, 50-53, 58, 59; Medo-Persia, 307, 308.SBBS 129.5