xi. 18,) our blessed LORD represents Satan to us as a monarch, who has

other subordinate devils obedient to him. Beelzebub is, as it were, their king. “If Beelzebub,” says he, “drives out devils, his kingdom is divided against itself; he labours for his own ruin; which is by no means credible; it is therefore false that I drive out devils in the name of Beelzebub.” St. Paul acknowledges in the Acts, (xxvi. 18,) that all those which are not in the religion of JESUS CHRIST, are under the empire and power of Satan. St. John (Rev. xx. 7) says, that, after a thousand years, Satan should be unbound, should come forth from hell, and subdue the nations.

To be delivered up to Satan is to be excommunicated, and surrendered to the Devil for a season, who visibly possessed this sort of people, that had deserved this punishment for their crimes or errors. St. Paul delivered up to Satan Hymeneus and Alexander, (1 Tim. i. 20,) that they might not learn to blaspheme. He also surrendered up to him the incestuous person of Corinth, (1 Cor. v. 5,) “For the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the LORD JESUS.”

When CHRIST sent forth his disciples to preach in the cities and villages of Judea, they returned back with great joy, and told him, saying, “LORD, even the devils are subject to us through thy name.” (Luke x. 17, 18.) JESUS tells them, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven;” where he seems to allude to that passage of Isaiah, (xiv. 12,) “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning;” and by which he insinuates that the kingdom of the Devil was coming to a period; that Satan should soon lose his power and dominion in the world, by the preaching and miracles of the apostles; and in Luke xxii. 31, he says, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not:” showing thereby what vain efforts the Devil would make to destroy the infant Church.

SATISFACTION. (See _Atonement_, _Covenant of Redemption_, _Jesus_, _Propitiation_.) Whatever that is, which being done or suffered by an offending creature himself, or by another person for him, shall secure the favour of the Divine government, in bestowing upon the offender pardon and happiness, may be properly called a satisfaction or atonement made to GOD for him. In saying this, it is not intended to assert that it is in the power of any creature to satisfy for his own sins, for this is impossible; but only to show what we mean when we speak of his doing it.

Such a sense of the word satisfaction, though not in strict propriety of speech amounting to the payment of a debt, is agreeable to the use of the word in the Roman _law_; where it signifies _to content a person aggrieved_, and is put for some valuable consideration, substituted instead of what is a proper payment, and consistent with a remission of that debt or offence for which such supposed satisfaction is made: which is a circumstance to be carefully observed, in order to vindicate the doctrine we are about to establish, and to maintain the consistency between different parts of the Christian scheme.

CHRIST has made satisfaction for the sins of all those who repent of their sins, and return to GOD in the way of sincere, though imperfect, obedience.

1. Although CHRIST was innocent, nevertheless he endured very grievous sufferings, both in body and mind (Isa. liii. 3; Matt. xxvi. 38); and he did this spontaneously. (Heb. x. 7, 9.)

2. It is expressly asserted in Scripture, that these sufferings were brought upon CHRIST _for the sake of_ sinful men, _in whose stead_ he is also said to have suffered. (Isa. liii. 5, 6, 10; Matt. xx. 28; Rom. iii. 25; v. 6, 8; 2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. iii. 13; Eph. v. 2; Heb. vii. 27; ix. 26; x. 12; 1 Pet. ii. 24; iii. 18.)

3. The offers of pardon and eternal salvation are made in Scripture to those that repent and return to GOD, for the sake of what CHRIST has done and suffered: _in whom_ they are therefore declared to be accepted by GOD, and _to whom_ they are hereupon taught to ascribe the glory of their salvation. (John iii. 14–17; Acts x. 35, 36, 43; ii. 38; iii. 18, 19; Rom. iv. 25; Col. i. 20–22; 2 Cor. v. 18, 20; Eph. i. 5, 7; Heb. ii. 3; ix. 14; x. 4, 10, 14; Rev. i. 5, 6; v. 9, 10; vii. 13, 14.)

4. It is evident that, according to the gospel institution, pardon and life were to be offered to all to whom the preaching of the gospel came, without any exception. (Mark xvi. 15, 16; Acts xiii. 38, 39; 1 John ii. 1, 2; Isa. liii. 6; John i. 29.)

5. It is plain, from the whole tenor of the epistolary part of the New Testament, as well as from some particular passages of it, that there was a remainder of imperfection, generally at least, to be found even in the best Christians; notwithstanding which they are encouraged to rejoice in the hope of salvation by CHRIST. (Phil. iii. 13; Gal. v. 17; James iii. 2; 1 John i. 8, 10; ii. 1, 2.)

6. Whereas, so far as we can judge, the remission of sin, without any satisfaction at all, might have laid a foundation for men’s thinking lightly of the law of GOD, it is certain that, by the obedience and sufferings of CHRIST, a very great honour is done to it; and mercy communicated to us as the purchase of his blood, comes in so awful as well as so endearing a manner, as may have the best tendency to engage those who embrace the gospel to a life of holy obedience.

SATISFACTION, ROMISH. This lies at the bottom of much of the Romish heresy. It directly opposes the doctrine of justification by faith only, and is closely connected with the Romish notion of the merits of good works. The following is the eighth chapter of the Council of Trent upon the subject.

“Lastly, as concerns satisfaction, which of all the parts of repentance, as it has been at all times recommended by our fathers to the Christian people, so now, in our time, is chiefly impugned, under the highest pretence of piety, by those who teach a form of godliness, but have denied the power thereof; the holy synod declares that it is altogether false, and contrary to the word of GOD, to say that sin is never remitted by the LORD, but the entire punishment is also pardoned. For, besides Divine tradition, clear and illustrious examples are found in the holy books, by which this error is most plainly refuted. In truth, even the principle of Divine justice seems to demand that they who have sinned through ignorance before baptism should be received by him into grace, after a different manner from those who, having been once freed from the bondage of sin and Satan, and having received the gift of the HOLY GHOST, have not been afraid knowingly to violate the temple of GOD, and to grieve the HOLY SPIRIT: and it becometh the Divine mercy that our sins should not be so remitted without any satisfaction, lest we take occasion to think lightly of our sins, and so, injuring and insulting the HOLY SPIRIT, we fall into worse, treasuring up unto ourselves wrath against the day of wrath. For, beyond all doubt, these punishments of satisfaction recall the penitents very much from sin, and restrain them, as it were, with a bit, and make them more cautious and watchful for the future. They cure also the remains of sins, and by actions of opposite virtues, destroy vicious habits acquired by evil living. Nor, in truth, was there ever any way considered in the Church more sure for the removal of the impending punishment of GOD, than that men, with real grief of mind, should accustom themselves to these works of repentance. To this may be added, that while we suffer by making satisfaction for sins, we are made like unto CHRIST JESUS, who made satisfaction for our sins, from whom all our sufficiency is derived; and having hence, also, a most sure covenant, that, if we suffer with him, we shall be also glorified together. Nor, in truth, is this satisfaction which we pay for our sins in such sort ours, that it should not be through CHRIST JESUS; for we who of ourselves can do nothing as of ourselves, can do all things by the assistance of him who comforteth us; so that a man hath not whereof he may boast; but all our boasting is in CHRIST, in whom we live, in whom we merit, in whom we make satisfaction; doing worthy fruits of repentance, which have their virtue from him, by him are offered to the FATHER, and through him accepted of the FATHER. The priests of the LORD therefore ought, according to the suggestions of the SPIRIT and their own prudence, to enjoin wholesome and suitable satisfaction, proportioned to the quality of the crimes, and the means of the penitents: lest, haply, they become partakers in other men’s sins, if they connive at sin, and deal too tenderly with the penitents, enjoining trifling works for the most grievous crimes. Let them have also before their eyes, that the satisfaction which they impose is not only for a defence of the new life, and a remedy for infirmity, but also a revenge and punishment for past sins: for the ancient Fathers believe and teach that the keys of the priests were given not only for loosing but also for binding. Nor did they therefore think that the sacrament of repentance is the tribunal of anger and punishments; just as no Catholic has ever thought that, by our satisfactions of this kind, the force of the merit and satisfaction of our LORD JESUS CHRIST was either obscured or lessened in any degree: which, while our innovators are unwilling to understand, they teach that a new life is the best repentance, that they may destroy altogether the virtue and use of satisfaction.”

This, says Perceval in his “Romish Schism,” is a remarkable chapter. The repeated expressions of reference to our blessed LORD, “in whom we live, in whom we merit, in whom we make satisfaction when we perform worthy fruits of repentance, which from them have power, by him are offered to the FATHER, and through him are accepted of the FATHER,” plainly show how keenly alive the Tridentine Fathers were to the danger of men considering their own penances as irrespective of our LORD’S death and mediation, against which error they thus endeavour to guard. But the other error of making GOD, or GOD’S ministers in his behalf, through vengeance of past sins, and not merely for the correction of the offence, insist upon penal satisfactions from those who, with true repentance, and with faith in CHRIST, have forsaken their sins, as though the vicarial punishment inflicted upon the SON of GOD were not sufficient to satisfy the Divine vengeance, is left, and must needs be left, untouched. But how great injury this does to the full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice of our LORD, and how great injury also to the character of our heavenly FATHER, there need no arguments to prove. The passages cited by the publishers of the Tridentine decrees, (Gen. iii., 2 Sam. xii., Num. xii. and xx.,) being all taken from the old dispensation, cannot be pressed, because the analogy of GOD’S dealings before and after the sufferings of our LORD will not altogether hold: besides, they all relate to cases of open sin, in which, for the edification of others, temporal punishment was inflicted, from which no argument whatever can be adduced in behalf of vindictive penalties for secret sins, which have been repented of, confessed, and forsaken, with faith in CHRIST. It would seem from certain expressions, that they consider the practice of the virtues most opposed to the sins committed among the vindictive penalties for sin. A strange and most unhappy light in which to regard what the Scriptures would have us consider our highest privileges and our choicest happiness. That the practice of the Church of Rome is in accordance with this is placed beyond all doubt, when it is known that the repeating a certain number of prayers is often enjoined as a penance or punishment for sin.

SAVIOUR. (See _Jesus_.) One who delivers from danger and misery; as GOD does by his providential care (Psalm cvi. 21; Isa. xlv. 15, 21; lxiii. 8; Jer. xiv. 8; 1 Tim. iv. 10); and as does our LORD JESUS CHRIST (Luke ii. 11; John iv. 42; Acts v. 31; xiii. 23; Eph. v. 23; Phil. iii. 20). He saves from sin (Matt. i. 21); from the thraldom of Satan (Heb. ii. 14; 1 John iii. 8); from the world (Gal. i. 4); from the sting of death (1 Cor. xv. 55, 57); from the grave (1 Cor. xv. 22, 23; Phil. iii. 20, 21); from hell (1 Thess. i. 10); and brings to the enjoyment of eternal bliss in heaven (Matt. xxv. 34; 1 Pet. i. 3, 4; 2 Pet. i. 11). CHRIST _is able_ to save to the uttermost (Heb. vii. 25); and he is _willing_ to save all who come to him (Matt. xi. 28; John vi. 37).

SAVOY CONFERENCE. A conference held at the Savoy, in London, in 1661, between the Catholic divines of the Church of England and the Presbyterians; of which the following is a brief account: The object was to ascertain what concessions with respect to the liturgy could conciliate the Presbyterians, or Low Church party of that day. The representatives of that body demanded the discontinuance of all responses and similar divisions in the Litany; an abolition of saints’ days; an introduction of extemporaneous prayer; a change as to several of the Epistles and Gospels, which, remaining in the old version, contained various errors; the lengthening of the collects; the rejection of the Apocrypha; a removal from the baptismal office of the word _regenerated_, as applied to all baptized persons; and a similar rejection of the giving thanks for brethren taken by GOD to himself, as embracing all alike who were interred, both these phrases being held incompatible with the commination. They would have the liturgy be more particular, and the catechism more explicit. They consented to give up the Assembly’s Catechism for the Thirty-nine Articles somewhat altered; and they wound up their expectations with the old request, that the cross, ring, surplice, and kneeling at the sacrament should be left indifferent.

On the contrary, the Church commissioners maintained that bishops already performed ordination with the assistance of presbyters; that it was expedient to retain a certain number of holy-days for the reasonable recreation of the labouring classes; that the surplice was a decent emblem of that purity which became the ministers of GOD; that its high antiquity was shown by St. Chrysostom in one of his homilies; and that it received a sanction from several passages in the Revelation (ch. iii. 4, 5). They affirmed that CHRIST himself kept the feast of dedication, a festival of human appointment; that the sign of the cross had been always used “_in immortali lavacro_;” that kneeling was an ancient and decent usage, and that the high antiquity of liturgies in the Church is indisputable. To the demand that the answers of the people should be confined to “Amen,” they replied, that Dissenters say more in their psalms and hymns; if then in poetry, why not in prose? if in the Psalms of Hopkins, why not in those of David? and if in a Psalter, why not in a Litany? That Scripture contained all which is needful for salvation, they deemed no more an objection to the Apocrypha than to preaching. To read the Communion Service at the communion table was maintained to be an ancient custom, and “let ancient customs be observed, unless reason demands their abolition,” was the golden rule of the Council of Nice.

They could see no real advantage in compromise and concession. What had the former alternate preaching of regular incumbents and puritanical lecturers ever effected but the sowing of perpetual dissensions in every parish, the aspersion of the characters and defeating of the usefulness of regular pastors, and a distraction of the people’s minds with different winds of doctrine, till they knew not what to believe? In truth, it was certain that whatever concessions might be made, so long as the love of novelty, the pride of argumentation, the passion for holding forth, and the zeal for proselytizing, continued to be principles in the human heart, no concession would ever abolish sects in religion; while the Church of England, by departing from her ancient practice, would only compromise her dignity, and forfeit her title to due reverence. Yet, since some fondly conceived that all parties, tired of dissension and disturbance, were now eager to coalesce; and that to concede the minor points of difference to the Presbyterian ministers would afford them a plausible excuse for maintaining harmony without violating their principles; they would not object to a revision of the liturgy, they would even give up the ceremonies, if any shadow of objection could be brought forward on the score of their sinfulness or impropriety. Their antagonists, however, refused to accept this challenge, since admitting them to be neither sinful nor improper, they deemed it sufficient to show that a positive obligation should not be imposed with respect to things indifferent. On this question, which was in fact the point at issue, as the parties could come to no agreement, the conference, like the former, terminated in mutual dissatisfaction.—See _Cardwell’s History of the Conferences_.

The object aimed at by those who would have lowered the terms of conformity, was, in itself, inexpressibly inviting. It was their hope to see the great body of professing Christians in England united in one communion: so to annihilate that schism, which, in the judgment of both parties, had been the great blemish of the English Church, from almost the earliest stage of the Reformation. But, allowing every merit to the intention, can we, at this day, refuse the praise of deeper foresight to their opponents; who argued, that if some things were changed, in order to please the party then applying, successive parties might arise, making fresh demands, and inventing as good reasons for the second and third concessions, as had been urged for the first?... If such an ecclesiastical modification as was wished for by Judge Hale and his associates had been adopted, general pacification could not, even then, have been attained; and the discovery of new grounds of dissent would have made the prospect more and more hopeless. In the mean time, the English Church establishment would have parted with some of its most distinguishing characteristics; those features, in particular, which are derived from the ancient Church, would have been, in a great measure, defaced; and of course, the principle of adhering, on all doubtful points, to the concurrence of Christian antiquity, could have been insisted on no longer. Had the Church of England thus deserted her ancient ground, where, we cannot but ask, should alteration have stopped? A practice once originated is repeated without difficulty. Can we, then, entertain a doubt, that the successive endeavours which have been used, at one time, to new-modify the forms of our worship; at another, to abate the strictness of our doctrinal creed; would have been as successful as, in our actual circumstances, they have proved abortive? To nothing, under heaven, can we so reasonably ascribe the defeat of all such efforts, as to the dread of disturbing what had remained so long substantially unaltered. Had there been no room for this feeling, other considerations might not have been available, against the apparent plausibility of what was asked, or the persevering ardour of the applicants. Had the work of demolition once begun, its progress would have been both certain and illimitable; each successive change would have been the precedent for another, yet more substantial and vital.—_Alexander Knox, Pref. to 2nd Ed. of Burnet’s Lives._

SAXON. The earliest development of Romanesque, as applied to ecclesiastical architecture in England, is so called. Historically this style ought to extend from the coming of St. Augustine to the Conquest (1066); but the intercourse of England with Normandy was so constant before that time, that there can be no doubt we had already much Norman architecture. It is scarcely less to be doubted that many more ante-Conquest buildings yet remain, than are usually accounted Saxon. The characters most relied on to determine Saxon work are the long and short work, triangular headed doors and windows, the splaying of the windows externally as well as internally, and the occurrence of baluster shafts in the windows. These, however, are not constant in well-authenticated Saxon buildings, nor do they invariably indicate a Saxon date.

SAYING AND SINGING. The parts of the service directed to be _said or sung_, or _sung or said_, are, the Venite, the Psalms, (in the title page of the Prayer Book,) the Te Deum, (and by inference and analogy,) the Canticles; the Apostles’ Creed, the Litany, the Athanasian Creed, the Easter Anthem, the Nicene Creed, the Sanctus, the Gloria in Excelsis, the psalm in the Matrimonial Service, the commencing sentences and two anthems in the Burial Service, the Communion Service, the communion service in the Ordination of Deacons and Priests, and the Veni Creator in the Ordination of Priests and Bishops. These two phrases have no difference in meaning, since the Apostles’ Creed is directed to be _sung or said_, in the Morning Service; to be _said or sung_, in the Evening. It appears that the ecclesiastical use of the word _say_ is two-fold: (1.) As a general term, including all methods of recitation, with or without note, or musical inflection. In this sense it is used in our Prayer Book, when employed _alone_. (2.) As a more technical and restricted term, used in contradistinction to _singing_; and yet not to _singing_ in the general sense, but in one or more of its restricted senses.

For the word _sing_, as is well known, has more than one ecclesiastical sense; since it includes, (1.) all that is recited, in whatever way, in a musical tone; in which sense it is not used in the Prayer Book; (2.) that which is chanted, like the Psalms, Athanasian Creed, and Litany; (3.) that which is sung anthem-wise, like the Anthems, Canticles, Hymns, and Nicene Creed. In these two last senses it is contradistinguished from _say_ in the Prayer Book.

The phrase _sung or said_ specifies those parts of the service only, in which, when _said_, the minister has a distinctive part, whether (1.) leading or preceding the people in each clause; or (2.) reciting alternate verses with them; or (3.) reciting the passage alone; but which, when _sung_, are sung by the minister and people, or choir, all together, without any distinctive part being assigned to him. And it may be added, these parts may be, and usually are, sung to the organ. The phrase never applies to those parts of the service which are always to be repeated by the minister alone in the versicle, and by the people in the response.

The instance given above of the communion service in the Ordination of Priests and Bishops, is the only direction to which this rule does not appear exactly applicable. But here, from the nature of the case, the Communion Service is spoken of in a general way; and we are, of course, referred to its special rubrics in their proper places. All that is meant is this, that the service shall be performed chorally or parochially, according as circumstances may allow or require.

With respect to the Apostles’ Creed, that is the only instance in which the permission or injunction of the rubric to sing this part of the service, (that is, to sing it anthem-wise, or to the organ,) has never been acted on. This rubric was altered to its present form at the last review; as before it had merely been directed to be _said_. The words “or sung” seem to have been inserted in order to preserve the analogy between this creed and the Nicene, which it resembles in its construction.

But this is only apparent. For the _Litany_ may seem an exception to the rule. When _said_, it is repeated alternately, as verse and response, by the minister and people. But the regular choral usage is, not that _the minister_, or a priest, but _two_ chanters should _sing together_ those parts which the minister reads in a parish church, and which in some old choral books are here called _versicles_, as far as the LORD’S Prayer exclusive. And this, not with the common intonation and inflection used in prayers and versicles, (which have come under the denomination of _singing_,) but with the modulation of a regular chant; which in some parts of the Litany (the invocation e. g.) these two chanters sing throughout; while in others they form the first part of the chant, the response of the choir forming the second. This particular service has often been set to artificial music, both before and after the last review. No notice of _Minister_ (or _Priest_) and _Answer_ are prefixed to the former part of the Litany; while in the latter part, when there are such notices, the suffrages are always recited by one _minister_, and answered by the choir or people.

Now if in a choir the minister were to read, or simply intone, the versicles of the first part of the Litany, that service would then not be _sung_, but _said_, according to the meaning of the rubric, even though the responses were chanted; the word _singing_ including the _whole_ portion of the service then specified, not a part only. And this is probably the reason why the ancient harmonized Litanies by various composers are generally set to music in the _former part_ only; the supplications, or latter part, being customarily sung in choirs to the ordinary chant.

But the rubrics by no means interfere with, and indeed do not allude to, the chanting of prayers and responses immemorially used in choirs; the singing which the rubrics specify being a different thing from choral or responsional recitation. The responses were, and are still, frequently sung to the organ. But _singing_ (as used in the Prayer Book) never has reference to a mere _response_. In fact, the word _answer_ is an ecclesiastical term, which in choirs always implies _singing_, (in its common and general sense,) as attention to the older documents on which our Prayer Book was based will show.—_Jebb._

SCARF. A piece of silk or other stuff which hangs from the neck, and is worn over the rochet or surplice. It is not mentioned in the rubric of the English ritual, but is worn by our bishops and dignitaries of the Church. It is used from long custom, and may be referred to the ancient practice of the Church, according to which presbyters and bishops wore a scarf or stole in the administration of the sacraments, and on some other occasions. The stole has been used from the most primitive ages by the Christian clergy. It was fastened on one shoulder of the deacon’s alb, and hung down before and behind. The priest had it over both shoulders, and the ends of it hung down in front. Thus simply were the dresses of the priests and deacons distinguished from each other in primitive times.

SCEPTICS. (From the Greek word σκέπτομαι, _to look about_, _to deliberate_.) This word was applied to an ancient sect of philosophers founded by Pyrrho, who denied the real existence of all qualities in bodies except those which are essential to primary atoms, and referred everything else to the perceptions of the mind produced by external objects; in other words, to appearance and opinion. In modern times, the word has been applied to Deists, or those who doubt of the truth and authenticity of the sacred Scriptures.

SCHISM, in the ecclesiastical sense of the word, is a breaking off from communion with the Church, on account of some disagreement in matters of faith or discipline. The word is of Greek original, and signifies a _fissure_ or _rent_.

We shall easily learn what the ancients meant by the unity of the Church and schism, if we consider the following particulars:—1. That there were different degrees of unity and schism, according to the proportion of which a man was said to be more or less united to the Church, or divided from it. 2. That they who retained faith and baptism, and the common form of Christian worship, were in those respects at unity with the Church; though, in other respects, in which their schism consisted, they might be divided from her. 3. That to give a man the denomination of a true Catholic Christian, absolutely speaking, it was necessary that he should in all respects, and in every kind of unity, be in perfect and full communion with the Church; but to denominate a man a schismatic, it was sufficient to break the unity of the Church in any one respect; though the malignity of the schism was to be interpreted, more or less, according to the degrees of separation he made from her. Because the Church could not ordinarily judge of men’s hearts, or of the motives that engaged them in error and schism, therefore she was forced to proceed by another rule, and judge of their unity with her by their external communion and professions.

And as the Church made a distinction between the degrees of schism, so did she between the censures inflicted on schismatics; for these were proportioned to the quality and heinousness of the offence. Such as absented themselves from church for a short time (which was reckoned the lowest degree of separation) were punished with a few weeks’ suspension. Others, who attended only some part of the service, and voluntarily withdrew when the eucharist was to be administered: these, as greater criminals, were denied the privilege of making any oblations, and excluded for some time from all the other holy offices of the Church. But the third sort of separatists, who are most properly called schismatics, being those who withdrew totally and universally from the communion of the Church, and endeavoured to justify the separation; against these the Church proceeded more severely, using the highest censure, that of excommunication, as against the professed enemies and destroyers of her peace and unity.

Ecclesiastical history presents us with a view of several considerable schisms, in which whole bodies of men separated from the communion of the Catholic Church. Such were, in the fourth century, the schisms of the Donatists, and the many heretics that sprung up in the Church, as the Arians, Photinians, Apollinarians, &c.; the schism of the Church of Antioch, occasioned by Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, in Sardinia; in the fifth century, the schism of the Church of Rome, between Laurentius and Symmachus; in the ninth century, the separation of the Greek Church from the Latin; but, particularly, the grand schism of the popes of Rome and Avignon, in the fourteenth century, which lasted till the end of the Council of Pisa, 1409.—_Bingham._

It is a causeless separation from such governors in the Church as have received their authority and commission from JESUS CHRIST. If there be a sufficient cause, then there may be a separation, but no schism. But if there be no sufficient ground for the separation, it is schism, that is, a culpable separation, which was always reckoned a sin of a very heinous nature. For St. Paul charges the Ephesians to keep the unity of the SPIRIT in the bond of peace, because there is but one GOD, one faith, one baptism, and one body of CHRIST. The same doctrine is taught in the writings of the first Fathers of the Church, particularly St. Ignatius and St. Cyprian; and schism was reputed a great sin by them, even before the Church and State were united, and when the meetings of the schismatics were as much tolerated by the State as the assemblies of the Catholics. For toleration does not alter the nature of schism. Such laws only exempt the persons of schismatics from any penal prosecution. Donatism and Novatianism were counted as damnable schisms, under the reigns of those emperors who granted toleration to them, as under the reigns of those who made laws against them.—_Nelson._

SCHOOLS. The word was anciently of larger application than at present, and signified places of instruction not only for children, but for those of more advanced age. It was applied generally to what are now called universities. Thus Shakspeare, in Hamlet, speaks of being at school at Wittenberg, that is, at the university. The places in the universities where exercises for degrees are performed, and lectures read, are still called schools, both in England, and at least in the older universities of Europe: and academical degrees were often called _degrees of school_.

But taking the term in its usual modern acceptation, as places of education for the young, it may be convenient in these days to have a concise history of schools. The following, therefore, is given from Dr. Burn and other writers of authority:—

The determinations in the courts of law relative to schools at the time Dr. Burn wrote, had not been delivered with that precision which was usual in other cases. And indeed, excepting in an instance or two in the court of Chancery, the general law concerning schools did not seem to have been considered as yet upon full and solemn arguments. And, therefore, he says, a liberty of animadversion is taken in some of the following particulars, which would not be allowable in matters which had been finally adjudged and settled.

By the 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 37. Whereas it would be a great hinderance to learning and other good and charitable works, if persons well inclined may not be permitted to found schools for the encouragement of learning or to augment the revenues of schools already founded, it shall be lawful for the king to grant licences to aliene, and to purchase and hold in mortmain.

But, by the 9 Geo. II. c. 36, after June 24, 1736, no manors, lands, tenements, rents, advowsons, or other hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal, nor any sum of money, goods, chattels, stocks in the public funds, securities for money, or any other personal estate whatsoever, to be laid out or disposed of in the purchase of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, shall be given or any ways conveyed or settled, (unless it be _bona fide_ for full and valuable consideration,) to or upon any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, or otherwise, for any estate or interest whatsoever, or any ways charged or encumbered, in trust or for the benefit of any charitable uses whatsoever; unless such appointment of lands, or of money, or other personal estate, (other than stocks in the public funds,) be made by deed indented, sealed, and delivered in the presence of two witnesses, twelve calendar months at least before the death of the donor, and be enrolled in Chancery within six calendar months next after the execution thereof; and unless such stock in the public funds be transferred in the public books usually kept for the transfer of stocks, six calendar months at least before the death of the donor; and unless the same be made to take effect in possession for the charitable use intended, immediately from the making thereof, and be without power of revocation. And any assurance otherwise made shall be void.

By Canon 77. “No man shall teach either in public school or private house, but such as shall be allowed by the bishop of the diocese, or ordinary of the place, under his hand and seal; being found meet, as well for his learning and dexterity in teaching, as for sober and honest conversation, and also for right understanding of GOD’S true religion; and also except he first subscribe simply to the first and third articles in the 36th canon, concerning the king’s supremacy, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and to the two first clauses of the second article, concerning the Book of Common Prayer, viz. that it containeth nothing contrary to the word of GOD, and may lawfully be used.”

And in the case of _Cory_ and _Pepper_, T. 30 Car. II., a consultation was granted in the court of King’s Bench, against one who taught without licence in contempt of the canons; and (the reporter says) the reason given by the court was, that the canons of 1603 are good by the statute of the 25 Hen. VIII., so long as they do not impugn the common law, or the prerogative royal.—2 _Lev._ 222. _Gibs._ 995.

But this is unchronological and absurd; and as the office of a schoolmaster is a lay-office (for where it is supplied by a clergyman, that is only accidental, and not of any necessity at all); it is clear enough, that the canon by its own strength in this case is not obligatory.

Therefore we must seek out some other foundation of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and there are many quotations for this purpose fetched out of the ancient canon law, (_Gibs._ 1099,) which, although perhaps not perfectly decisive, yet it must be owned they bear that way.

The argument in _Cox’s case_ seems to contain the substance of what has been alleged on both sides in this matter, and concludes in favour of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction; which was thus: M. 1700. In the Chancery: Cox was libelled against in the spiritual court at Exeter, for teaching school without licence from the bishop: And on motion before the lord chancellor an order was made, that cause should be shown why a prohibition should not go, and that in the mean time all things should stay. On showing cause, it was moved to discharge the said order, alleging, that before the Reformation this was certainly of ecclesiastical jurisdiction: Wright, lord keeper, decided that both courts may have a concurrent jurisdiction; and a crime may be punishable both in the one and in the other: The canons of a convocation do not bind the laity without an act of parliament: But I always was, and still am of opinion, that keeping of school is by the old laws of England of ecclesiastical cognizance: and therefore let the order for a prohibition be discharged. Whereupon it was moved, that this libel was for teaching school generally, without showing what kind of school; and the court Christian could not have jurisdiction of writing schools, reading schools, dancing schools, or such like; to which the lord keeper assented; and thereupon granted a prohibition as to the teaching of all schools, except grammar schools, which he thought to be of ecclesiastical cognizance.

By act of parliament the case stands thus: By the 23 Eliz. c. 1. If any person or persons, body politic or corporate, shall keep or maintain any schoolmaster which shall not repair to some church, chapel, or usual place of common prayer, or be allowed by the bishop or ordinary of the diocese where such schoolmaster shall be so kept, he shall, upon conviction in the courts at Westminster, or at the assizes, or quarter sessions of the peace, forfeit for every month so keeping him £10; one-third to the king, one-third to the poor, and one-third to him that shall sue: and such schoolmaster or teacher, presuming to teach contrary to this act, and being thereof lawfully convict, shall be disabled to be a teacher of youth, and suffer imprisonment without bail or mainprise for one year.

By the 1 Jac. I. c. 4, s. 9. No person shall keep any school, or be a schoolmaster, out of any of the universities or colleges of this realm, except it be in some public or free grammar school, or in some such nobleman’s or gentleman’s house as are not recusants, or where the same schoolmaster shall be specially licensed thereunto by the archbishop, bishop, or guardian of the spiritualities of that diocese; upon pain that, as well the schoolmaster, as also the party that shall retain or maintain any such schoolmaster, shall forfeit each of them for every day so wittingly offending 40_s._; half to the king, and half to him that shall sue.

And by the 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4. Every schoolmaster keeping any public or private school, and every person instructing or teaching any youth in any house or private family as a tutor or schoolmaster, shall, before his admission, subscribe the declaration following, viz. “I, A. B., do declare, that I will conform to the liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by law established.” Which shall be subscribed before the archbishop, bishop, or ordinary of the diocese; on pain that every person so failing in such subscription shall forfeit his school, and be utterly disabled, and _ipso facto_ deprived of the same, and the said school shall be void as if such person so failing were naturally dead.

And if any schoolmaster, or other person, instructing or teaching youth in any private house or family as a tutor or schoolmaster, shall instruct or teach any youth as a tutor or schoolmaster before licence obtained from the archbishop, bishop, or ordinary of the diocese, according to the laws and statutes of this realm, (for which he shall pay 12_d._ only,) and before such subscription as aforesaid, he shall for the first offence suffer three months’ imprisonment, without bail; and, for every second and other such offence, shall suffer three months’ imprisonment, without bail, and also forfeit to the king the sum of £5. (S. 8, 9, 10, 1.)

M. 9 G. II. _The King_ against _the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry_. A mandamus issued to the bishop to grant a licence to Rushworth a clergyman, who was nominated usher of a free grammar school within his diocese. To which he returned, that a caveat had been entered by some of the principal inhabitants of the place, with articles annexed, accusing him of drunkenness, incontinency, and neglect of preaching and reading prayers; and that the caveat being warned, he was proceeding to inquire into the truth of these things when the mandamus came; and therefore he had suspended the licensing him. And without entering much into the arguments, whether the bishop hath the power of licensing, the court held, that the return should be allowed as a temporary excuse; for though the act of the 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4, obligeth them only to assent to and subscribe the declaration, yet it adds, “according to the laws and statutes of this realm;” which presupposeth some necessary qualifications, which it is reasonable should be examined into.

And by Canon 137. “Every schoolmaster shall, at the bishop’s first visitation, or at the next visitation after his admission, exhibit his licence, to be by the said bishop either allowed, or (if there be just cause) disallowed and rejected.”

By the 11 & 12 Will. III. c. 4. If any Papist, or person making profession of the Popish religion, shall keep school, or take upon himself the education or government or boarding of youth, he shall be adjudged to perpetual imprisonment in such place within this kingdom as the king by advice of his privy council shall appoint.

In _Bales’s case_, M. 21 Car. II., it was held, that where the patronage of a school is not in the ordinary, but in feoffees or other patrons, the ordinary cannot put a man out; and a prohibition was granted; the suggestion for which was, that he came in by election, and that it was his freehold.

Upon which Dr. Gibson justly observes, that if this be any bar to his being deprived by ordinary authority, the presentation to a benefice by a lay patron, and the parson’s freehold in that benefice, would be as good a plea against the deprivation of the parson by the like authority. And yet this plea hath been always rejected by the temporal courts. And in one circumstance at least, the being deprived of a school, notwithstanding the notion of a freehold, is more naturally supposed, than deprivation of a benefice; because the licence to a school is only during pleasure, whereas the institution to a benefice is absolute and unlimited.—_Gibson_, 1110.

By Canon 78. “In what parish church or chapel soever there is a curate, which is a master of arts, or bachelor of arts, or is otherwise well able to teach youth, and will willingly so do, for the better increase of his living, and training up of children in principles of true religion, we will and ordain that a licence to teach youth of the parish where he serveth be granted to none by the ordinary of that place, but only to the said curate: provided always, that this constitution shall not extend to any parish or chapel in country towns, where there is a public school founded already; in which case we think it not meet to allow any to teach grammar, but only him that is allowed for the said public school.”

By Canon 79. “All schoolmasters shall teach in English or Latin, as the children are able to bear, the larger or shorter catechism, heretofore by public authority set forth. And as often as any sermon shall be upon holy and festival days, within the parish where they teach, they shall bring their scholars to the church where such sermons shall be made, and there see them quietly and soberly behave themselves, and shall examine them at times convenient after their return, what they have borne away of such sermons. Upon other days, and at other times, they shall train them up with such sentences of Holy Scriptures, as shall be most expedient to induce them to all godliness. And they shall teach the grammar set forth by King Henry VIII., and continued in the times of King Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth of noble memory, and none other. And if any schoolmaster, being licensed, and having subscribed as is aforesaid, shall offend in any of the premises, or either speak, write, or teach against anything whereunto he hath formerly subscribed, if upon admonition by the ordinary he do not amend and reform himself, let him be suspended from teaching school any longer.

“The larger or shorter catechism.”—The shorter is that in the Book of Common Prayer; the larger was a catechism set forth by King Edward VI., which he by his letters patents commanded to be taught in all schools; which was examined, reviewed, and corrected in the convocation of 1562, and published with those improvements in 1570, to be a guide to the younger clergy in the study of divinity, as containing the sum and substance of our reformed religion.—_Gibson_, 374.

“Shall bring their scholars to the church.”—E. 10 & 11 W. _Betcham_, and _Barnardiston_. The chief question was, whether a schoolmaster might be prosecuted in the ecclesiastical court for not bringing his scholars to church, contrary to this canon. And it was the opinion of the court that the schoolmaster, being a layman, was not bound by the canons.

“Grammar.”—Compiled and set forth by William Lily and others specially appointed by his Majesty; in the preface to which book it is declared, that, “as for the diversity of grammars, it is well and profitably taken away by the king’s Majesty’s wisdom; who foreseeing the inconvenience, and favourably providing the remedy, caused one kind of grammar by sundry learned men to be diligently drawn, and so to be set out only; everywhere to be taught for the use of learners, and for avoiding the hurt in changing of schoolmasters.”

By the 43 Eliz. c. 4. Where lands, rents, annuities, goods, or money, given for maintenance of free schools or schools of learning, have been misapplied, and there are no special visitors or governors appointed by the founder, the lord chancellor may award commissions under the great seal, to inquire and take order therein.

Whether a mandamus lieth for restoring a schoolmaster or usher, when in fact they have been deprived by the local visitors, is doubtfully spoken of in the books of common law; and the pleadings upon them seem not to touch the present point, but to turn chiefly upon this, whether they are to be accounted offices of a public or private nature.—_Gibson_, 1110.

Thus, in the case of _The King_ against _the Bailiff’s of Morpeth_, a mandamus was granted, to restore a man to the office of under-schoolmaster of a grammar school at Morpeth, founded by King Edward VI. The same being of a public nature, being derived from the Crown.

And the distinction seems to be this: If they shall be deemed of a public nature, as constituted for public government, they shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the king’s courts of common law; but if they be judged matters only of private charity, then they are subject to the rules and statutes which the founder ordains, and to the visitor whom he appoints, and to no other.

In the case of colleges in the universities, whether founded by the king or by any other, it seemeth now to be settled that they are to be considered as private establishments, subject only to the founder and to the visitor whom he appointeth; and it doth not seem easy to discern any difference between schools and colleges in this respect.

H. 1725. _Eden_ and _Foster_. The free grammar school of Birmingham was founded by King Edward VI., who endowed the said school, and by his letters patent appointed perpetual governors thereof, who were thereby enabled to make laws and ordinances for the better government of the said school, but by the letters patent no express visitor was appointed, and the legal estate of the endowment was vested in these governors. After a commission had issued under the great seal to inspect the management of the governors, and all the exceptions being already heard and overruled, it was now objected to this commission that the king, having appointed governors, had by implication made them visitors likewise: the consequence of which was, that the Crown could not issue a commission to visit or inspect the conduct of these governors. The matter first came on before Lord Chancellor Macclesfield, and afterwards before Lord King, who desired the assistance of Lord Chief Justice Eyre and Lord Chief Baron Gilbert; and accordingly the opinion of the court was now delivered seriatim, that the commission was good. 1. It was laid down as a rule, that where the king is founder, in that case his Majesty and his successors are visitors; but where a private person is founder, there such private person and his heirs are by implication of law visitors. 2. That though this visitatorial power did result to the founder and his heirs, yet the founder might vest or substitute such visitatorial right in any other person or his heirs. 3. They conceived it to be unreasonable, that where governors are appointed, these by construction of law and without any more should be visitors, and should have an absolute power, and remain exempt from being visited themselves. And, therefore, 4. That in those cases where the governors or visitors are said not to be accountable, it must be intended, where such governors have the power of government only, and not where they have the legal estate and are intrusted with the receipt of the rents and profits (as in the present case); for it would be of the most pernicious consequence, that any persons intrusted with the receipt of the rents and profits, and especially for a charity, though they misemploy never so much these rents and profits, should yet not be accountable for their receipts: this would be such a privilege, as might of itself be a temptation to a breach of trust. 5. That the word _governor_ did not of itself imply visitor; and to make such a construction of a word, against the common and natural meaning of it, and when such a strained construction could not be for the benefit, but rather to the great prejudice, of the charity, would be very unreasonable; besides, it would be making the king’s charter operate to a double intent, which ought not to be. And the commission under the great seal was resolved to be well issued.—2 _P. Will._ 325.

The following case relates particularly to a church; but is equally applicable to, and far more frequently happeneth in, the case of schools. It is that of Waltham church, H. 1716. Edward Denny, earl of Norwich, being seized by grant from King Edward VI., of the site and demesnes of the dissolved monastery of Waltham Holy Cross, and of the manor of Waltham, and of the patronage of the church of Waltham, and of the right of nominating a minister to officiate in the said church, it being a donative, the abbey being of royal foundation by his will in 1636, amongst other things the said earl devised a house in Waltham, and a rent-charge of £100 a year, and ten loads of wood to be annually taken out of the forest of Waltham, and his right of nominating a minister to officiate in the said church, to six trustees and their heirs, of which Sir Robert Atkins was one, in trust for the perpetual maintenance of the minister, to be from time to time nominated by the trustees; and directed that when the trustees were reduced to the number of three, they should choose others. It so fell out, that all the trustees, except Sir Robert Atkins, were dead; and he alone took upon him to enfeoff others to fill up the number; and now the surviving trustees (of the said Sir Robert’s appointment) did nominate Lapthorn to officiate; and the Lady Floyer and Campion, who were owners of the dissolved monastery and of the manor, claimed the right of nomination to the donative, and had nominated Cowper to officiate there, and he was got into possession. The bill was, that Lapthorn might be admitted to officiate there, and to be quieted in the possession, and to have an account of the profits. By the defendants it was amongst other things insisted, that the trustees having neglected to convey over to others, when they were reduced to the number of three, and the legal estate coming only to one single trustee, he had not power to elect others; but by that means the right of nomination resulted back to the grantor, and belonged to the defendants, who had the estate, and stood in his place; or at least the court ought to appoint such trustees as should be thought proper. By Cowper, Lord Chancellor: It is only directory to the trustees, that when reduced to three, they should fill up the number of trustees; and, therefore, although they neglected so to do, that would not extinguish or determine their right; and Sir Robert Atkins, the only surviving trustee, had a better right than any one else could pretend to, and might well convey over to other trustees; it was but what he ought to have done: and it was decreed for the plaintiff with costs, and an account of profits; but the master to allow a reasonable salary to Cowper, whilst he officiated there.

By the 43 Eliz. c. 2, all lands within the parish are to be assessed to the poor rate. But by the annual acts for the land tax it is provided, that the same shall not extend to charge any masters or ushers of any schools, for or in respect of any stipend, wages, rents, or profits, arising or growing due to them, in respect of their said places or employments.

Provided that nothing herein shall extend to discharge any tenant of any the houses or lands belonging to the said schools, who by their leases or other contracts are obliged to pay all rates, taxes, and impositions whatsoever; but that they shall be rated and pay all such rates, taxes, and impositions. And in general it is provided, that all such lands, revenues, or rents, settled to any charitable or pious use, as were assessed in the fourth year of William and Mary, shall be liable to be charged; and that no other lands, tenements or hereditaments, revenues, or rents whatsoever, then settled to any charitable or pious uses as aforesaid, shall be charged.—_Burn._

The 4 & 5 Vict. c. 38, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 49, and 14 & 15 Vict. c. 24, facilitate the granting of land as sites for schools.

From the year 1818, owing to the inquiries of the commissioners appointed to examine into public charities, much was done with respect to schools founded for the benefit of particular localities. At length, in 1840, was passed the statute of 3 t& 4 Vict. c. 77, of which the preamble states the facts as they then stood. It is as follows:—“Whereas there are in England and Wales many endowed schools, both of royal and private foundation, for the education of boys or youth wholly or principally in grammar; and the term ‘grammar’ has been understood by courts of equity as having reference only to the dead languages, that is to say, Greek and Latin: and whereas such education, at the period when such schools, or the greater part, were founded, was supposed, not only to be sufficient to qualify boys or youth for admission to the universities, with a view to the learned professions, but was also necessary for preparing them for the superior trades and mercantile business: and whereas, from the change of times, and other causes, such education, without instruction in other branches of literature and science, is now of less value to those who are entitled to avail themselves of such charitable foundations, whereby such schools have, in many instances, ceased to afford a substantial fulfilment of the intentions of the founders, and the system of education in such grammar schools ought, therefore, to be extended and rendered more generally beneficial, in order to afford such fulfilment; but the patrons, visitors, and governors thereof are generally unable, of their own authority, to establish any other system of education than is expressly provided for by the foundation, and her Majesty’s courts of law and equity are frequently unable to give adequate relief, and in no case but with considerable expense; and whereas, in consequence of changes which have taken place in the population of particular districts, it is necessary, for the purpose aforesaid, that in some cases the advantages of such grammar schools should be extended to boys other than those to whom by the terms of the foundation, or the existing statutes, the same is now limited, and that in other cases some restriction should be imposed, either with reference to the total number to be admitted into the school, or as regards their proficiency at the time when they may demand admission; but in this respect also the said patrons, visitors, and governors, and the courts of equity, are frequently without sufficient authority to make such extension or restriction: and whereas it is expedient that in certain cases grammar schools in the same place should be united.” The act, having recited these circumstances, proceeds to enable her Majesty’s courts of equity, when questions relating to these schools come before them, upon information or petition, or in other proceedings, to establish schemes for the application of the revenues of these schools, having regard to the intention of the founder.

The 24th section, however, provides that nothing in the act shall prejudice the rights of the ordinary; and it also exempts the universities, and the more important public schools, such as Eton, Winchester, Harrow, Rugby, &c., from the operation of the act.

The following succinct and lucid history of public education for the poor in England was given by the bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, in his visitation charge of 1847:—

“The system of mutual instruction was first promulgated in this island by Dr. Andrew Bell, exactly half a century from the present time; and that invention, when generally known, drew people’s minds to the subject of schools for the children of the poor; for it was thought, that a method by which one person could inspect the instruction of great numbers would reduce so materially the expense, as to render it no longer hopeless to procure some education for all the inhabitants of the country. In the early years of the nineteenth century, this became the subject of earnest discussion and controversy: and with good reason; for it seemed an obvious consequence, that a machinery by which large numbers could be instructed together, would place in the hands of those who directed that instruction a powerful moral engine to affect the minds of the rising generation. The sectaries were not slow in availing themselves of that engine; and as the religious differences of dissenting parents were, by some, considered a reason against their children using the catechism of the Church, it was maintained by them, that nothing should be taught in those large seminaries except such truths as all Christians, of every complexion and denomination, could agree to accept. Many faithful ministers of the Church felt that they would not be justified before God or man in abdicating one of their most essential functions, that of watching the instruction of their young parishioners, and they recoiled from any proposal of compromising Divine truths; accordingly, they were found strenuously to resist that scheme. With the view of directing the education of the poor in the principles of the National Church, in the year 1812 was established the National Society, an institution which has ever since, by various methods, assisted our schools—by contributions towards their erection—by training teachers—by imparting advice and information—and by maintaining consistency and efficiency in an extensive and rather complicated system. It was, I believe, about thirty years ago that this momentous subject acquired increased importance in the public eye, by the reports of an Education Committee of the House of Commons; and it was then first suggested, that an object of such vast consequence as national education claimed the direct assistance of the State, and that nothing less than aid from the public purse could ever compass the great object of universal instruction. But it was not until the year 1833, that the least assistance was rendered by the government or parliament towards that work. Schools had indeed increased in number, and the public mind had become more and more favourable to the undertaking. But the countenance then first given to popular education by parliament, seems to have originated in political considerations. The population of the country had increased with surprising rapidity; and the vast numbers of poor congregated in towns, particularly in the manufacturing and mining districts, left far behind them all the efforts of private benevolence. At the same time, a fearful increase was observed in the amount of crime; and an examination of the unhappy inmates of prisons proved that a great majority were destitute of every kind of instruction: on the other hand, of the educated part of the poorer classes, very few were discovered in the criminal ranks. Such considerations showed the extreme danger of suffering masses of the people to grow up in ignorance of moral and religious duties, and weighed with parliament to make a grant towards building school rooms. The amount was indeed trifling, compared with the demand, being only £20,000 for England and Wales: but the like sum was repeated for five successive years; and, niggardly as these grants have been generally called, it would be ungrateful not to acknowledge that they did cause a great extent of good throughout the country. The money granted by the treasury being proportioned to the sums advanced by private subscriptions, was effectual in stimulating a large amount of individual charity, and thus called into being a multitude of schools that could not otherwise have had existence. The treasury grants being conveyed through the National Society to Church schools, and through the British and Foreign Society to Dissenting schools, to meet the sums respectively subscribed, the result was, that no less than five-sixths of the whole were allotted to the former; thereby giving a signal proof of the greater zeal in the cause of education which animated Churchmen.

“However, the experience of so many years too plainly showed that the education, if such it could be called, which was given to the poor, was inadequate and unsatisfactory. The system of mutual instruction, though to a certain extent useful when judiciously directed, was found not to be capable of those wonderful effects upon which sanguine minds had calculated. Besides, the early age at which children were generally deprived of school instruction, through the necessities or the cupidity of their parents, perpetually disappointed the hopes of their intellectual proficiency. But, above all, the inadequate qualification of the masters and mistresses of National Schools precluded all prospect of such an education as might elevate the mind. The smallness of their salaries, mainly depending upon precarious subscriptions, almost excluded persons of ability and energy from situations in which those qualities are peculiarly required. Frequently the instructors of the rising generation were persons who had been unsuccessful in their endeavours to obtain a livelihood in other lines of life, who had never turned their attention to the subject of education, and were destitute of the temper, discernment, and love of the profession, which should be combined in a good teacher; and a few weeks’ attendance in the central school (when funds could be found for that purpose) was seldom sufficient to remedy previous inaptitude, or to confer appropriate habits and address. Against these difficulties, the clergy, feeling that upon them the responsibility was cast, long struggled with exemplary zeal and patience; a state of things which still continues. Many are the cases where the whole pecuniary support of a school, beyond the weekly pence of the children, rests with the minister; and whatever is of any value in the teaching, proceeds from himself, or the members of his family.

“From observation of these and other defects in our system, and from a deep sense of the duty of a Christian nation to bring up its people in Christian principles, the National Society promulgated a new and comprehensive plan, the object of which was to establish, in every diocese, training schools for teachers, to combine them with seminaries for the children of the middle classes, (who had before been unaccountably overlooked in our schemes of national education,) and to give permanence to these institutions by connecting them with the cathedral establishments; while it was hoped, that all Churchmen of influence and education might be interested in the care and promotion of the system, by the formation of diocesan boards of education. This important movement took place in the year 1838; and though the results, as far as it has operated, have been beneficial to the cause of education, yet it must be confessed, that the success of the scheme has not equalled the anticipations of its benevolent and enlightened projectors. The pecuniary support which it has met with has not been hitherto sufficient to carry into execution the contemplated objects to the required extent: the effect, however, has, on the whole, been considerable; and the conviction universally produced on the public mind seems to be, that without an appropriate education to be given to the teachers, qualifying them to conduct the moral culture of the youthful mind, all efforts at useful instruction of the poor will be illusory; and that this is an object which must, at all risks and all cost, be kept in view. Nevertheless, no one can fail to see the difficulty which the circumstances of this country cast in the way of any training system: in particular, the acquirements of the pupils being of such a nature as will qualify them for many other employments better remunerated than the mastership of a charity school, it is always to be feared that the best and ablest proficients may be tempted to desert the profession for which they have been educated, to embark in one more lucrative and alluring.

“In the following year the government made an attempt to take into their own hands the guidance of national education. This was to have been effected by various steps, by the establishment of a model school, and of a school for instructors, (or _normal school_, as it was termed,) under the authority and direction of a Committee of the Privy Council, who were constituted a board of education, with a great latitude of discretion. The former rule of appropriating grants of public money in a just proportion to voluntary donations was to be no longer observed; but a centralized system of government inspection of schools and of the course of instruction was announced. As these measures were proposed by statesmen who had always avowed themselves advocates and supporters of what is termed the British and Foreign system, as they opened a door to the introduction of a course of education _in which religion might have little or no share_, and as they were joyfully hailed by that party in the country which avowed hostility to the Church, there could be little doubt on the mind of anybody as to their tendency. Though the operation might have been gradual, yet no long time would have passed before the Church was deposed from one of its most important functions, and that upon which its ulterior usefulness among the poorer classes mainly depends—the early instruction of their youth. This must be regarded as the great crisis of the education question, in which the sentiments of all who had thought or interested themselves in the matter found expression. The government plan was upheld by those who wished for schools in which instruction might be confined, as in those of France, to secular knowledge—as well as by those who advocated the notion of dividing religious instruction into _general_ and _special_, and wished to communicate the former in schools, but to exclude the latter, as bringing into collision conflicting opinions. The prevailing judgment of the public was indicated by petitions to parliament, of which about 3000 were against the proposals, and about 100 in their favour. The measure was only carried in the House of Commons, with all the weight of ministerial influence, by a majority of two, while in the Upper House resolutions condemnatory of it were voted by a majority of no less than 111; and an address was carried up to the throne by the whole House, praying her Majesty not to enforce a system which interfered with the province of the Established Church. It rarely happens that upon any question the preponderance of public opinion throughout all classes has been expressed so decidedly, and at the same time so deliberately. Its first result was of a very remarkable character. The distinguished and eloquent statesman, the founder of the British and Foreign School Society, who had signalized the whole of his public life by a zealous and energetic advocacy of the comprehensive system of education, was so convinced of the hopelessness of overcoming the prevalent feeling in favour of the Church as general instructress, that he published a pamphlet, to persuade those who had co-operated with him for thirty years in that course to acquiesce in the decision which public opinion, as well as parliament, had pronounced against them; and urged, with his usual force of argument, that they would best show themselves the sincere and patriotic advocates for the diffusion of knowledge, by agreeing at once to a ‘Church Education Bill.’

“It is gratifying to contemplate the moderation with which the Church used the triumph of opinion declared in her favour, and the substantial proof which she gave of the sincerity of her zeal for intellectual improvement. The deplorable ignorance in which multitudes were suffered to grow up in the populous manufacturing and mining districts, and the inadequacy of any voluntary efforts in their favour, had been used as the great argument for devolving all care of them and their instruction upon the State; accordingly, a special fund was immediately subscribed, and intrusted to the National Society, for maintaining schools in those populous districts, amounting to not less than £150,000, five times the sum voted at the time by parliament for the whole kingdom. A disposition was likewise shown to meet, as far as possible, the views of the government in regard to schools whose erection had been aided by parliamentary grants; it being agreed that they should be open to government inspection, on condition that the inspectors of Church schools were to be persons recommended by the archbishops of the respective provinces.

“During the last seven years the system of inspection has been in progress, and, I think, with singular benefit to the cause of education. The examination of a number of schools by able and intelligent observers (and such qualifications the inspectors eminently display) has thrown much light upon a subject in which there must ever be some practical difficulty. Through a comparison of different cases, it becomes evident what methods are most successful in practice; and it can be satisfactorily ascertained in which instances failure is attributable to the plan, and in which to the execution. The inspectors’ reports, comprising a mine of valuable information, will be found in the volumes of the Committee of Council, which also communicate a variety of plans for schoolrooms and school-houses, directions useful for building and conducting schools, improvements introduced from time to time, and a large body of economics conducive to the improvement of humble education. Among all the truths which have been established upon this interesting subject, the most important is, that the instructor should himself have received early training, not merely that he may be qualified to conduct the mechanical process of a school, but may have such acquaintance with the tempers and characters of children, and such skill in managing them, as experience alone can confer. Above all, it is necessary that he should himself be thoroughly imbued with religious principles, without which there is little chance of his imparting that tone of Christian discipline which should pervade the whole of his intercourse with the scholars. That there may not be wanting a supply of fit and able persons to fill these stations, it is particularly desirable that, whenever a boy is distinguished in a national school for ability and good disposition, he should be retained beyond the usual age, both for his own improvement and for the service of the school; and if means can be found to constitute him a stipendiary monitor, the real benefits of the monitorial system will be perceived, without the objections to which it has been found liable. Such a pupil may have further instruction after school hours, and, if his manners and conduct correspond with his ability, may become an apprentice teacher; he will then be qualified as a recipient of the higher instruction communicated at a training establishment for schoolmasters, or, as it is the fashion to call it, a normal school.”

Mr. Johnston, in his “England in the Middle of the Nineteenth Century,” published 1851, after quoting this, proceeds to say, “The hopes which the good bishop entertained of a continued cordiality of co-operation between the National Society, as the organ of the Church, and the Committee of Privy Council as the educational department of the civil government, have not been quite fulfilled. The parliamentary grants of public money in support of education were indeed increased, having been, from 1839 to 1842, £30,000 a-year; in 1843 and 1844, £40,000 a-year; in 1845, £75,000; in 1846, £100,000; and in 1847 and 1848, £125,000 a-year; but in 1846 the Committee of Privy Council began to insist upon certain conditions of management in the Church of England schools assisted with public money, which led to a correspondence with the National Society, extending over a period of three years, and terminating in a resolution of the Society not to recommend to promoters of schools to accept the management clauses insisted upon by the Committee of Privy Council. The correspondence on both sides is distinguished by considerable caution and much courtesy. In several points the Committee of Privy Council readily conceded what was required by the National Society, but in the main points of imposing more restriction upon the promoters of schools than the National Society thought desirable, and in refusing to allow the bishop to exercise authority over the Church of England schools, except in what concerned directly the religious instruction of the pupils, the Committee of Privy Council continued to oppose the views of the Church. The actual and officially recognised difference between the state of affairs as regards this subject, at the time the Bishop of Gloucester delivered his charge and at the present time (1850), is this,—that whereas the Committee of the National Society in 1846 and 1847 agreed with the Committee of Privy Council jointly to recommend certain management clauses to promoters of schools, they now have declined to recommend such clauses, and this they have done on the following grounds:—In times past the Committee of the National Society never interfered with the constitution of schools, but left them to be determined by the promoters. It was found, however, that in very numerous instances the constitution chosen by the promoters was defective. At the time mentioned the Committee of Privy Council asked the National Society to _recommend_ certain clauses, to which the Society assented, with this proviso—that promoters of schools should have the same liberty of choice as had hitherto been conceded to them by the Committee of Privy Council and the National Society. The Society, however, found, in the beginning of 1848, that by _recommendation_ the Committee of Privy Council meant _enforcement_, and that no new school would be aided by the Committee of Privy Council in the building, which would not receive one of the four management clauses; and not only that, but the one particular clause out of the four which the Committee of Privy Council thought best for that particular school. Upon this the Committee of the National Society remonstrated against what they considered an infringement of reasonable liberty, and they also remarked upon several points in the clauses which in their opinion would be made better by alteration. On most of these points the Committee of Privy Council gave way; but on the question of liberty, that Committee would not give way, and they still continue to enforce one of these management clauses where public money is granted, and that one selected by themselves. Therefore the Committee of the National Society declined to continue to recommend the clauses; but they have not ceased to give the same proportion of aid out of their funds to all cases of school building, whether aided by the Committee of Council or not; and therefore whether adopting one of the management clauses or not. The actual and formal breach between the National Society and the Committee of Privy Council has not gone beyond this. In respect to general matters the same interchange of communication as heretofore goes on between the government department and the National Society. The training institutions supported by the Society are, as in times past, examined by her Majesty’s inspectors of schools, and certificates of merit awarded to the pupils therein. Payments are also made to these institutions out of the parliamentary grant in pursuance of such certificates, and the annual grant of £1000 towards the support of those institutions is still paid by the Committee of Council.”

Thus matters stood until 1852, when the sum granted by parliament to be applied in aid of schools by the Committee of Council was £160,000 for the year. At the same time the lords of the council made an alteration in the minutes governing the appropriation of aid to the building or enlarging of Church of England schools; leaving it optional with founders who petitioned for aid, either to take it upon such conditions as previously existed, or upon certain new conditions. These new conditions give the clergyman of the parish or district more direct authority over the religious and moral instruction of the pupils than was expressed in the previous conditions, and they enable him to prohibit, (on religious or moral grounds,) the use of any book, and to suspend the teacher from his functions, pending the decision of the question by the bishop of the diocese, whose decision is to be final.

The new minutes of 1852 were not maintained by the succeeding government. The grant for public education in 1853 was £260,000, and in 1854, £263,000, exclusive of the grant for Ireland. In 1852, by the 15 & 16 Vic. c. 49, the acts referred to in this article relating to sites of schools, were extended ta sites for theological training colleges.

SCHOOLMEN. The title given to a class of learned theologians who flourished in the middle ages. They derive their name from the schools attached to the cathedrals or universities in which they lectured. Some make Lanfranc (William the Conqueror’s archbishop of Canterbury) the first author of scholastic theology; others, the famous Abelard; others, his master Roscelinus; and others again his pupil Peter Lombard. But the most distinguished of the Schoolmen lived in the next century. The scholastic theology was the first attempt at forming a systematic theology. Their first step towards a systematic theology was to collect the sentences of the Fathers; the next step was to harmonize them by reducing them to principles. This could only be done by the application of philosophy to divinity, for philosophy unfolds the principles of reasoning. The Schoolmen, therefore, had recourse to the reigning philosophy, that of Aristotle; and Thomas Aquinas, in his _Secunda Secundæ_, i. e. the second part of the second division of the “Sum of Theology,” has given the best and clearest exposition of Aristotle’s Ethics to be met with out of Aristotle himself. The great error of the Schoolmen, which has occasioned the ruin of their theology, was this, that, instead of taking the Bible only for their basis, they took the Church for their first authority, and made the Bible only a part of the Church’s teaching.

The doctrine of the Schoolmen, of our deserving grace of congruity, is censured in our 13th Article.

The Schoolmen were:

1. Albertus Magnus, a Dominican friar, born in Suabia. He was educated in the university of Paris, and was Thomas Aquinas’s master. Pope Alexander IV. sent for him to Rome, where he officiated as master of the sacred palace: and Urban IV. forced him to accept of the bishopric of Ratisbon. He died at Cologne, in the year 1280. Albert wrote a great number of books; and, in those days of ignorance, was accused of magic, and of having a brazen head, which gave him answers.

2. Bonaventure, surnamed the _Seraphic Doctor_, born at Bagnarea, a city of Tuscany, in 1221. He entered into the order of the Minims, in 1233, and followed his studies in the university of Paris, where he afterwards taught divinity, and took his doctor’s degree with St. Thomas Aquinas in 1255. Next year he was elected general of his order; and Gregory X. made him a cardinal in 1272. He assisted at the first sessions of the General Council of Lyons, held in 1279, and died before it was ended. His works are very numerous, and equally replete with piety and learning.

3. Thomas Aquinas, surnamed the _Angelical Doctor_, was descended of the kings of Sicily and Aragon, and was born in the year 1224, in the castle of Aquin, which is in the territory of Laboré in Italy. After having been educated in the monastery of Mount Cassino, he was sent to Naples, where he studied Humanity and Philosophy. In 1244, he went to Cologne to study under Albertus Magnus. From thence he went to Paris, where he took his doctor’s degree in 1255. He returned into Italy in 1263; and, after having taught Scholastic Divinity in most of the universities of that country, he settled at last at Naples. In 1274, being sent for by Gregory X., to assist in the Council of Lyons, he fell sick on the road, and died in the monastery of Fossanova, near Terracina. Among the great number of his works, which make seventeen volumes in folio, his _Summa_ is the most famous, being a large collection of theological questions.

4. Scotus, or John Duns Scotus, surnamed the _Subtile Doctor_, was a Scotchman by birth, and came to Paris about the year 1300, where he took his degrees, and taught in that city. He particularly taught the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin. From Paris he went to Boulogne, where he died soon after, in 1303. According to the custom of the times, he wrote many philosophical and theological works, in which he valued himself upon maintaining opinions contrary to those of Thomas Aquinas. This gave rise to the opposite sects of the Scotists and Thomists.

5. William Ocham, surnamed the _Singular Doctor_, was born in a village of that name, in the county of Surrey, in England. He was the head of the sect called the Nominalists. He flourished in the university of Paris, in the beginning of the fourteenth century, and wrote a book concerning the power of the Church and of the State, to defend Philip the Fair against Pope Boniface VIII. He was one of the grand adversaries of Pope John XXII., who excommunicated him for taking part with the anti-pope Peter of Corbario. He ended his days at Munich, the court of the Elector of Bavaria, who had received him kindly.

6. Raymond Lully, descended of an illustrious family in Catalonia, was born in the island of Majorca in 1236. He was of the order of the Minims, and had acquired a great knowledge of the Oriental languages. He invented a new method of reasoning, but could not obtain leave from Honorius IV. to teach it at Rome. Then he resolved to execute the design he had long formed of endeavouring the conversion of the Mohammedans. Having gone to Tunis, he had a conference with the Saracens, in which he run the risk of his life, and escaped only upon condition he would go out of Africa. He came to Naples, where he taught his method till the year 1290. At Genoa he wrote several books. From thence he went to Paris, where he taught his art. After several travels and adventures, he returned to Majorca, from whence he went over into Africa, where he was imprisoned by the Saracens, and so ill-treated, that he died of his wounds. He had found out the secret of making a jargon proper to discourse of everything, without learning anything in particular, by ranging certain general terms under different classes.

7. Durandus, surnamed the _Most resolving Doctor_, was of St. Pourcain, a village in the diocese of Clermont, in Auvergne, and flourished in the university of Paris from 1313 to 1318, in which year he was named by the pope, bishop of Puy, from whence he was transferred to the bishopric of Meaux, which he governed to the time of his death.

8. To these may be added, Giles, archbishop of Bourges, surnamed the _Doctor who had a good Foundation_; Peter Aureolus, archbishop of Aix, styled the _Eloquent Doctor_; Augustin Triumphus, of Ancona, who wrote the _Milleloquium_ of St. Augustin; Albert of Padua; Francis Mairon, of Digne in Provence; Robert Holkot, an English divine; Thomas Bradwardin, an Englishman, surnamed the _Profound Doctor_, author of a treatise _de Causa Dei_ against Pelagius; and Gregory of Rimini, author of two commentaries on the First and Second Books of Sentences.

SCOTLAND. (See _Church in Scotland_.)

SCREEN. Any separation of one part of a church from another, generally of light construction, tabernacle work, open arcading, or wood tracery. The screens separating side chapels from the chancel, nave, or transept, are usually called parcloses. (See _Rood-loft_ and _Reredos_.)

SCRIPTURE. (See _Bible_.) “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

“_Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books._

Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua. Judges. Ruth. The First Book of Samuel. The Second Book of Samuel. The First Book of Kings. The Second Book of Kings. The First Book of Chronicles. The Second Book of Chronicles. The First Book of Esdras. The Second Book of Esdras. The Book of Esther. The Book of Job. The Psalms. The Proverbs. Ecclesiastes, or Preacher. Cantica, or Songs of Solomon. Four Prophets the Greater. Twelve Prophets the Less.

“And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life, and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine: such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras. The Fourth Book of Esdras. The Book of Tobias. The Book of Judith. The rest of the Book of Esther. The Book of Wisdom. Jesus, the Son of Sirach. Baruch the Prophet. The Song of the Three Children. The Story of Susanna. Of Bel and the Dragon. The Prayer of Manasses. The First Book of Maccabees. The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them canonical.”—_Article_ VI.

The Jews acknowledge the Books of the Old Testament only, which both Jews and Christians agree were collected into one body, except the Book of Malachi, by Ezra. They had been preserved during the Babylonish captivity, and the collection was made by him on the return from it. He divided the Bible, (‏מקרה‎) _mikra_, _lesson_, _lecture_, or _Scripture_, Βίβλος, (_the Book_,) into three parts: 1. The Law, containing the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses; 2. The Prophets, containing thirteen books; and 3. The Hagiographa, four books, making in the whole twenty-two, the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, but which the Jews now make twenty-four.

The first (the Law) was divided into fifty-four sections, for the several sabbaths, (with the intercalated month,) and these sections into verses. The division into chapters, which were originally subdivided by letters, not figures as now, is of late date, and was done to facilitate the use of concordances.

Some Books are cited in the Old Testament which are now lost, unless the same as others, under different names; as, 1. “The Book of Jasher” (Josh. x. 13; 2 Sam. i. 18); 2. “The Book of the Wars of the LORD” (Numb. xxi. 14); 3. “The Book of Chronicles or Days,” containing the annals of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, frequently cited in the Books of Kings and Chronicles; 4. The remainder of Solomon’s “three thousand proverbs,” and “a thousand and five songs,” and the whole of his writings on natural history, “of trees,” “of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes” (1 Kings iv. 32, 33); and 5. Probably the Lamentations of Jeremiah on the death of Josiah, as this subject seems not included in the book now extant. Some think that the first, the Book of Jasher, is the same as the second; others, the Books of Moses; and others think the first three are the same, and were public records deposited in the house of GOD. It is very probable that the references to these books, from the sense of them, were subsequent introductions.

Hebrew was the language of the Old Testament generally, but Ezra, ch. iv., from verse 8 to ch. vi. verse 19, and ch. vii., from verse 12 to 27, Jeremiah, ch. x. verse 11, and Daniel, from ch. ii. verse 4, to end of ch. vii., are in Chaldee. The Books of the New Testament were written in Greek, except, only, it has been questioned whether St. Matthew did not write in Hebrew, or Syriac, the language then spoken in Judea; and St. Mark in Latin; and whether the Epistle to the Hebrews was not first written in Hebrew.

Whether the art of writing had its origin in the communication of GOD with Moses on Mount Sinai, is doubtful. Some imagine that the passage, Gen. xxiii. 17, is an actual abridgment of the conveyance of the field of Ephron made to Abraham. It is certainly not improbable that the patriarchs might have compiled records of their time, and that by inspiration; and that Moses might collect these, as Ezra did in after-times. And this is argued by some from a supposed difference of style. Moses himself was expressly directed to write by way of record; a custom which continued under the Judges and the Kings, some of the latter of whom collected and arranged the books then existing; as it is clear Hezekiah did the proverbs of Solomon. The prophecies of Jeremiah, we know, were publicly read; and when Ezra made his collection, the number of copies was great, and the difference existing between them is supposed to form the marginal readings, amounting in all to 840. It was after his time that translations began to be made.

The preservation of the sacred Scriptures, and of the genuineness and integrity of the text, seems almost miraculous. It was in order to this that the Masora was composed, by which was ascertained, with stupendous labour, the number of verses, of words, and even of letters, contained in the twenty-four books of the Old Testament, and in every section and subdivision; and also the words supposed to be changed, superfluous letters, repetitions of verses and words, significations different or analogous, mute letters, and various other particulars and mysteries.

The Targum (explanation) is the Chaldee Paraphrase; being this rather than literal translations of the books of the Old Testament, and by which, when the Hebrew text was read in the synagogue, it was explained to the people. The first Targum was that of Jonathan, about thirty years before CHRIST, on the greater and lesser Prophets. The next is that of Onkelos, nearly contemporary, or something later, on the Books of Moses only, short and simple, and the most esteemed. The Targum of Joseph the Blind, on the Hagiographa, is more modern, in a corrupt Chaldee, and less regarded. The Targum of Jerusalem, on the Pentateuch only, is very imperfect, and supposed by some to be only a fragment. Besides these there is a Targum falsely ascribed to Jonathan, on the Pentateuch, evidently not older than the 7th century: the Targums on Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamentations, Ruth, Esther: three Targums on Esther, and a Targum on the Chronicles, discovered in 1680: all these are of late date, not earlier than the 6th century. On Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, there is no Targum.

Most of the MSS. of the Hebrew Bible at present in existence were collated by and for Dr. Kennicott, 250 by himself, and 350 by another, being from 480 to 800 years old. Since this more than 400 others, of the 7th or 8th century, have been discovered. Dr. Rossi followed up Dr. Kennicott’s work.

The first printed edition of the whole Bible was in 1488; the first Latin translation was by Munster, in 1534. The Septuagint was probably the first Greek version; to which followed those of Symmachus and Theodotion, with three others by unknown authors. The Septuagint, (a translation supposed to have been by seventy-two Jews,) called for conciseness “the Seventy,” was made in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 277, at an expense of above £136,000. There are four principal modern editions: the Complutensian, A. D. 1514–1517; the Aldine, 1518; the Roman of Sixtus V., 1587; and Grabe’s, printed at Oxford, 1707–1720. In 1798, Dr. Holmes began publishing an edition at Oxford, carried on since his death by Mr. Parsons, on the plan of Kennicott’s Hebrew Bible with the various readings in the margin.

The first edition of the New Testament in Greek was the Complutensian, 1514–1517, though not published till 1522. Next that of Erasmus, in 1516. The editions of the Stephenses (1546–1550) are admirable for their beauty. The editions of Beza, 1565–1598, and Elzevir, 1624, are also to be noticed. The celebrated edition, with various readings, of the Rev. John Mill, was published at Oxford in 1707, after the labour of thirty years, and the readings amounted to 30,000! That of Wetstein, at Amsterdam, in 1751, with a far greater number; and that of Griesbach, at Halle, in 1775–1777, with a select collection of these readings.

With this great number of various readings may be mentioned the increase of parallel passages, in the English editions of the Bible; being, from the edition 1611, when they were first introduced, to Bishop Wilson’s Bible, A. D. 1785, from 8980 to 66,955. And these in the “Concordance of Parallels,” published afterwards by the Rev. C. Cruttwell, the editor of this last Bible, are probably three or four times the number.

SCRIPTURE, CANON OF. The present canon of the Roman Church was made in the fourth session of the Council of Trent, at which, besides cardinals, there were present no more than four archbishops and thirty-three bishops; of which number all but eight were Italians.

These men, who were as ill qualified by their learning as by their numbers to rule so great a question, were not even unanimous in the conclusion which they adopted. Some contended that the books ought to be placed in separate classes, the one to be used for piety, the other for the establishment of doctrine, which is the rule of the English Church. Seripando, the most learned of the cardinals present, even wrote a book to maintain this view; while nearly half the members of the council were opposed to the anathema by which the decree is enforced.

The main authority which has been urged in favour of the Roman canon, is that of the Council of Carthage. It is not however agreed when this synod was held; and, whatever date may be assigned, its decrees have no authority beyond the province of Africa, having never been incorporated in the universal code. To use the words of Bishop Cosin, “the question is, whether ever any Church or ancient author, during these first ages, can be showed to have professedly made such a catalogue of the true and authentic books of Scripture, as the Council of Trent hath lately addressed and obtruded upon the world: which will never be done. In the mean while they all speak so perspicuously for our Church canon, that there can be no denial of their agreement herein with us.”

The Apostolical Constitutions, which some writers assign to Clement, bishop of Rome, and which were undoubtedly written very early, do not admit in the canon those books which we call apocryphal. In the second century we find that Justin Martyr never cites them for Scripture. Origen and Tertullian, in the third, agree in rejecting them. In the fourth, we have a multitude of the greatest writers, who are clearly against the Church of Rome on this point; such as Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary, Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and Jerome; besides the Council of Nice at the beginning of the century, and towards the close of it the Council of Laodicea, whose canons were incorporated among those of the universal Church. The great Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria, of Antioch and Constantinople, pronounced on the same side; and even in the Roman Church itself we have the same testimony from Gregory I., as well as of many others who are held to be its chief authorities. Cardinal Caietan, who died only a few years before the meeting of the council, following St. Jerome, maintained the distinction between the canonical and apocryphal books, and the influence of his opinion was very considerable, even at Trent. But the use of the Apocrypha was well known to be indispensable to Roman theologians, and if it were not admitted to form part of Scripture, no Divine sanction could be pleaded for purgatory, the canonization of saints, or the worship of images and relics. In this, as well as many other instances, the Roman Church has not scrupled to violate primitive tradition, in order to maintain its uncatholic doctrines and practices.

SCRIPTURES, INSPIRATION OF. (See _Bible_, _Revelation_.) “All Scripture,” we are told, “is given by inspiration of GOD.” To understand which expression we would remark, that Divine inspiration, or the supernatural influence of GOD upon the mind, to form it for intellectual improvement, may be, 1. An inspiration of _superintendency_, by which GOD preserves a writer commissioned by him to communicate his will, from error in those points _which relate to his commission_. It does not follow that the writer shall be preserved from error in what relates to grammar, or natural philosophy; but he is preserved from error in all that GOD has commissioned him to reveal. 2. An inspiration of _suggestion_, which precedes the former, and takes place when GOD doth, as it were, speak directly to the mind of the inspired person, making such discoveries to it as it could not but by miracle obtain. This has been done in various ways, by immediate impression on the mind, by dreams and visions represented to the imagination; at other times by sounds formed in the air, or by visible appearances.

The New Testament was written by a _superintendent_ inspiration. The apostles were, according to CHRIST’S promise, furnished with all necessary powers for the discharge of their office, by an extraordinary effusion of the HOLY SPIRIT upon them at the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 4, &c.); and a second time (Acts iv. 31).

We may assure ourselves that they were hereby competently furnished for all those services which were of great importance for the spread and edification of the Church, and of so great difficulty as to need supernatural assistance.

Considering how uncertain a thing _oral tradition_ is, and how soon the most public and notorious facts are corrupted by it, it was impossible that the Christian religion could be preserved in any tolerable degree of purity, without a _written_ account of the facts and doctrines preached, by the apostles; and yet, on the other hand, we can hardly suppose that GOD would suffer a doctrine introduced in so extraordinary a manner to be corrupted and lost.

The discourses of CHRIST were several of them so long, and some likewise of so curious and delicate a nature, that it is not to be imagined the apostles should have been able exactly to record them, especially so many years after they were delivered, and amidst such a variety of cares and dangers, without such extraordinary Divine assistance, or without an inspiration of superintendency.

Many of the doctrines which the apostles delivered in their writings were so sublime and so new, that as they could not have been known at first otherwise than by an inspiration of suggestion, so they would need an inspiration of superintendency in delivering an accurate account of them.

There is reason to believe, from the promise of CHRIST, that such parts of the New Testament as were written by the apostles were written by an inspiration of superintendency.

It is not to be thought that persons, so eminent for humility, piety, humanity, and other virtues, as the apostles were, would have spoken of their writings as the _words_ and the _commands of the_ LORD as the _test of truth and falsehood_, and gloried so much in being under the direction of the SPIRIT, if they had not certainly known themselves to be so in their writings, as well as in their preaching; and the force of this argument is greatly illustrated, by recollecting the extraordinary miraculous powers with which they were honoured, while making exhortations and pretensions of this kind, as was hinted above.

There was an ancient tradition that St. Mark and St. Luke were in the number of the seventy disciples who were furnished with extraordinary powers from CHRIST, and received from him promises of assistance much resembling those made to the apostles (compare Luke x. 9, 16, 19); and if it were so, as the arguments used to prove both the understanding and integrity of the apostles may be in great measure applied to them, we may, on the principles laid down, conclude that they also had some inspiration of superintendency. But there is much reason to regard that received and ancient tradition in the Christian Church, that St. Mark wrote his Gospel instructed by St. Peter, and St. Luke his by St. Paul’s assistance; which, if it be allowed, their writings will stand nearly on the same footing with those of Peter and Paul.

It may not be improper here just to mention the internal marks of a Divine original in Scripture. The excellence of its doctrines, the spirituality and elevation of its design, the majesty and simplicity of its style, the agreement of its parts, and its efficacy upon the hearts and consciences of men, concur to give us a high idea of it, and corroborate the external arguments for its being written by a superintendent inspiration at least.

There has been in the Christian Church, from its earliest ages, a constant tradition, that these books were written by the extraordinary assistance of the SPIRIT, which must at least amount to superintendent inspiration.

With respect to the Old Testament, the books we have inherited from the Jews were always regarded by them as authentic and inspired. And our blessed LORD and his apostles were so far from accusing the Jews of superstition, in the regard which they paid to the writings of the Old Testament, or from charging the scribes and Pharisees (whom CHRIST, on all proper occasions, censured so freely) with having introduced into the sacred volume mere human compositions, that, on the contrary, they not only recommend the diligent and constant perusal of them, as of the greatest importance to men’s eternal happiness, but speak of them as Divine oracles, and as written by an extraordinary influence of the DIVINE SPIRIT upon the minds of the authors. (Vide John v. 39; x. 35; Mark xii. 24; Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10; v. 17, 18; xxi. 42; xxii. 29, 31, 43; xxiv. 15; xxvi. 54, 56; Luke i. 67, 69, 70; x. 26, 27; xvi. 31; Acts iv. 25; xvii. 11; xviii. 24–28; Rom. iii. 2; xv. 4; xvi. 26; Gal. iii. 8; 1 Tim. v. 17, 18; 2 Tim. iii. 14–17; James ii. 8; iv. 5; 1 Pet. i. 10–12; 2 Pet. i. 19–21.) To this list may be added many other places,—on the whole, more than five hundred,—in which the sacred writers of the New Testament quote and argue from those of the Old, in such a manner as they would surely not have done, if they had apprehended there were room to allege that it contained at least a mixture of what was spurious and of no authority.—_Lowth on Inspiration. Tillotson’s Sermons. Doddridge’s Lectures._

The argument of the Divine inspiration of Scripture as an induction from its adaptation to the nature of man—even as regards those parts of the Old Testament which have been most obnoxious to cavil—is ably maintained in the Bampton Lectures of 1817, preached by the Rev. John Miller, from which the following is extracted:—“Although Scripture presents the most humiliating portraiture of human nature, and that intentionally, to lead man into a knowledge of himself, as the subject of its operation; it should be added that the Bible does not exhibit an _unmixed_ image of evil, inasmuch as, if it did, it would not be that exact resemblance of the character of man, which it is now affirmed to be. Nor do I, in subjoining this qualification, feel a consciousness either of having carried the main proposition unreasonably far, to countenance a partial construction, or of now adding any such inconsistent exception as may neutralize or destroy its force.

“The representation of evil was intended, and is necessary, for the analysis of doctrine. We hold the opinion, that a man is a being, ‘very far gone from an original righteousness,’ in which he was created. And it is maintained that the whole substance of Scripture so fully justifies this doctrine as to be quite inexplicable, and therefore, as a record of Divine wisdom, inadmissible, without it.

“It is, however, contended also, that _with_ this doctrine, found to be involved in the substance of its histories, and harmonizing with the end of its great provisions, Scripture commends itself, in a peculiar manner, to our belief and acceptation, as a record which, while it extends to the very root of our disease, and so alone points out the true method of recovery from it, falls in thereby with the observations of our own personal experience.

“But such involvement of a general truth by no means necessarily fixes or defines the measure or degree of sin in individuals acting in various stages of moral responsibility, and subject to the influences, not only of rational motives, but (as would seem, more or less even from the beginning) to those of an infused grace! And it may confidently be maintained, that the two several propositions now affirmed of Holy Writ, viz. that it gives a most humiliating view of man, and yet not one of unmixed evil, are not only not inconsistent, but explanatory one of the other. The one is specially profitable for ‘doctrine,’ the other for ‘instruction in righteousness.’ For Scripture not to have discovered a full and intimate acquaintance with the extent and quality of evil itself, would have substracted from our sure persuasion of its perfect insight into truth. Upon the other hand, to have displayed the operation of that evil otherwise than as it is seen practically existing in its effects, would not have been to give that real likeness of ourselves, which we have a claim to look for in a record offering itself to be our faithful guide. Hence, in the first case, without the darker lineaments of the Bible, how could we rightly have arrived at that true _doctrinal_ statement, which now affirms the general existence of an extreme unsoundness in the constitution of human nature, if that which is in man can only be developed adequately, or inferred correctly, through scrutiny of the worst deeds which man has done? How, in the second—while we consent entirely to the truth of this broad abstract statement of the _nature_ of man—could we consent with willing minds to take our sole or only chief instruction in the ways of righteousness, from guidance which should represent us all as being just alike, at any or at every moment of our lives, when we are certain that the practical appearances of evil show very many gradations, and put on very different aspects, in the condition of different individuals? * * * If Scripture does indeed thus show us to ourselves, and we cannot deny the truth of the resemblance; if it neither conceals deformity to tempt us, nor yet drives us into extremity, so as to overwhelm us; if it neither threatens nor promises too much, could it have proceeded either from one that did not know us, or from one that did not love us?”

SEALED BOOKS. By the Act 13 & 14 Car. II. (which ratified the last revision of the Prayer Book,) c. 4, sect. 28, it was enacted that the dean and chapter of every cathedral and collegiate church, should obtain under the great seal of England a true and perfect printed copy of the above-mentioned Act and Prayer Book, to be kept by them in safety for ever, and to be produced in any court of record when required; and that like copies should be delivered into the respective courts of Westminster, and the Tower of London: which books so to be exemplified under the great seal, were to be examined by persons appointed by the king, and compared with the original book annexed to the Act: these persons having power to correct and amend in writing any error; certifying the examination and collation under their hands and seals: “which said books, and every one of them, shall be taken, adjudged, and expounded to be good, and available in the law to all intents and purposes whatsoever, and shall be accounted as good records as this book itself heretofore annexed,” &c.

Mr. Stephens, in his late edition of the Common Prayer Book, with notes, has given a fac-simile text of the original black letter Prayer Books, published after the last Review, with all the corrections of the commissioners carefully marked. The sealed books which he collated for this purpose, are those for the Chancery, Queen’s Bench, Common Pleas, Exchequer, St. Paul’s, Christ Church Oxford, Ely, and the Tower of London.

SECONDARIES. A general name for the inferior members of cathedrals, as vicars choral, &c.: the _clerici secundæ formæ_, that is, of the second or lower range of stalls, called the _bas chœur_ in France. The priest vicars and minor canons were sometimes included in the superior form. Some of the lay singers at Exeter are so called. Sometimes the term was applied to the assistant priest in course, even though not of the second form. At Hereford the second vicar who assists in chanting the Litany is the “_secondary_.”

SECT. (From _seco_, Lat., to cut; being analogous to the word _schism_, derived from the Greek σχίζω, which has the same meaning.) A religious community following some particular master, instead of adhering to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Thus Calvinists are the sect following Calvin; Wesleyans the sect following Wesley. We are to remember that we are expressly forbidden in Scripture thus to call any man master: one is our master, JESUS CHRIST, the righteous.

SECULAR CLERGY. In those Churches in which there are monasteries, the clergy attached to those monasteries are called _Regulars_, the other clergy are styled _Seculars_. In our Church, before the Reformation, the number of Regulars was very great; but, since the Reformation, we have only had Secular clergy. The canons of such cathedrals of the old foundation as were not monastic, were called Secular.

SEDILIA. Seats near an altar, almost universally on the south side, for the ministers officiating at the holy eucharist. They are generally three in number, for the celebrant, epistoler, and gospeller, but vary from one to five.

SEE. (Latin, _sedes_.) The seat of episcopal dignity and jurisdiction where the bishop has his throne, or _cathedra_.

SELAH. An untranslated Hebrew word, recurring several times in the Psalms, and in Habakkuk iii., on the meaning of which there are many opinions. It is most probably a direction to raise the voice, or make some change in the instrumental performance at certain passages, and is merely a musical notation, connected however, as all proper musical expression must be, with the sense.

SEMI-ARIANS. The Arian sect was divided into two principal parties: the one of which adhering more closely to the opinion of their master, maintained that the SON of GOD was unlike the FATHER, Ἀνόμοιας, and of this party was Eunomius: the other party refused to receive the word consubstantial, yet acknowledged the SON of GOD Ὁμοιούσιος, of a like substance or essence with the FATHER, and therefore were called Semi-Arians, that is, half Arians; this party made the majority in the Councils of Rimini and Seleucia.

SEMI-PELAGIANS, or MASSILIENSES. A sect of heretics, who endeavoured to find a medium betwixt the Pelagians and the orthodox; they had their origin about 430 in France, (hence the name _Massiliens_, from Massilia, now Marseilles). Their principal favourers were Cassianus, a disciple of Chrysostom; Faustus, abbot of Lirinum; Vincentius, a Gallic writer, whom St. Prosper answered, &c. Their agreement with the Pelagians was in the power of free-will, at least as to the beginning of faith and conversion, and to the co-operation of GOD and man, grace and nature, as to predestination, from foreknowledge and universal grace, and the possibility of the apostasy of the saints. Some of them also would modify those opinions, and maintained only the predestination of infants from a foreknowledge of the life they would lead. The great opposers of this heresy were St. Augustine, Fulgentius, &c. The original of the _predestinarian_ heresy in this age is denied by Jansenius and others, as well as Protestants, and looked upon as a fiction of the Semi-Pelagians.

SEMI-PREBENDARIES. (See _Demi-Prebendaries_.)

SEMINARIES, in Popish countries, are certain colleges, appointed for the instruction and education of young persons, destined for the sacred ministry. The first institution of such places is ascribed to St. Augustine. And the Council of Trent decrees, that children, exceeding twelve years of age, shall be brought up, and instructed in common, to qualify them for the ecclesiastical state; and that there shall be a seminary of such belonging to each cathedral, under the direction of the bishop.

In the seminaries of France none are taken in but young persons, ready to study theology, and to be ordained. And for the maintenance of these seminaries certain benefices are allotted, or else the clergy of the diocese are obliged to maintain them. These colleges are furnished with halls for the public exercises, and little chambers or cells, where each student retires, studies, and prays apart. Such is the seminary of St. Sulpicius at Paris.

In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the Roman Catholics projected the founding English seminaries abroad, that from thence they might be furnished with missionaries to perpetuate and increase their communion. Accordingly the college of Douay was founded in 1569, at the expense of Philip II., king of Spain; and Dr. William Allen, an Englishman, was made head of it. In the year 1579, a college was founded at Rome for the same purpose, by Gregory XIII., who settled 4000 crowns _per annum_ for the subsistence of the society. The famous Robert Parsons, an English Jesuit, was rector of this college. King Philip founded another of these nurseries at Valladolid in the year 1589, and one at Seville in 1593. The same prince founded St. Omers in Artois, A. D. 1596. In the next century more seminaries were established, at Madrid, Louvain, Liege, and Ghent.

The two colleges of Douay and Rome received such great encouragement, that some hundreds of priests were sent off from thence into England. And to engage the members of these societies more firmly, they obliged them, at their admission, to take the following oath: “I, A. B., one bred in this English college, considering how great benefits GOD hath bestowed upon me, but then especially when he brought me out of my own country, so infected with heresy, and made me a member of the Catholic Church; as also desiring with a thankful heart to improve so great a mercy of GOD; have resolved to offer myself wholly up to Divine service, as much as I may, to fulfil the end for which this our college was founded. I promise, therefore, and swear, in the presence of Almighty GOD, that I am prepared from mine heart, with the assistance of Divine grace, in due time to receive holy orders, and to return to England, to convert the souls of my countrymen and kindred, when, and as often as, it shall seem good to the superior of this college.” As a further encouragement, Pope Pius V. sent his brief to the students of these colleges, for undertaking the mission into England. And that they might act without clashing, and with the better harmony, he put them all under the direction of Dr. Allen, afterwards Cardinal.

By a statute of Queen Elizabeth it is made a præmunire to contribute to the maintenance of a Popish seminary. And by one of King James I., no persons are to go, or be sent, to Popish seminaries, to be instructed or educated, under divers penalties and disabilities mentioned in the statute.

The houses of the society _De Propagandâ Fide_, established for the preparing ecclesiastics for missionaries among infidels and heretics, are also called seminaries. The principal of these is that at Rome, called the Apostolic College or Seminary, or the seminary _De Propagandâ Fide_.

SEPTUAGESIMA. The Sunday which in round numbers is 70 days before Easter: hence the name. There being exactly 50 days between the Sunday next before Lent and Easter day inclusive, that Sunday is termed Quinquagesima, i. e. the 50th. And the two immediately preceding are called from the next round numbers, Sexagesima and Septuagesima, 60th and 70th. The Church thus early begins to look forward to Easter, the queen of festivals. She would call back our minds from the rejoicing season of Christmas, and, by reflections on the humiliating necessity there was for MESSIAH’S advent, prepare us for that solemn season in Lent; in which, if with deep contrition and lively faith we follow CHRIST in his _sufferings_, we may rejoice with him here, and humbly hope to reign with him hereafter in his _glory_. The observance of these days and the weeks following, appears to be as ancient as the time of Gregory the Great. Some of the more devout Christians observed the whole time from the first of these Sundays to Easter, as a season of humiliation and fasting, though the ordinary custom was to commence fasting on Ash-Wednesday.

SEPTUAGINT. The Greek version of Scripture, which was received both by the Jews and the primitive Christians. The first account which we have of the origin of the Septuagint, is that which is given us by Aristeas. It is to this effect. Ptolemy Philadelphus, by the advice of Demetrius Phalereus, having determined to enrich his library at Alexandria with a translation of the books of the Jewish law, sent Aristeas, his minister, accompanied by Andrew, a person of celebrity, to Eleazar the high priest of the Jews, that he might obtain both a copy of the original, and persons duly qualified to render it into Greek. The request was complied with. A copy of the Mosaic law written in golden letters was sent, with seventy-two men, six from each tribe, to translate it. The translators, persons skilled both in Hebrew and Greek, were honourably received by the king of Egypt, and by him were sent to the isle of Pharos; and there, in the space of seventy-two days, they completed their work, mutually assisting each other, and dictating their translation to Demetrius. This version was afterwards read in an assembly consisting of Jewish priests and other learned men, and being stamped by their approbation, was placed in the library of Alexandria.

This account, given us by Aristeas, is sometimes appended to the editions of Josephus, and is also edited separately. It is worthy of remark, that in this description nothing of the marvellous is introduced, and it would clearly seem that the reference is to the Pentateuch, and to that only.

Josephus, in the twelfth book, s. 1, of his “Antiquities,” for the most part agrees with this account by Aristeas. But in the life of Moses, by Philo-Judæus, we find both variations and additions. Agreeing with Aristeas in his assertion, that certain learned Jews were sent from Jerusalem to Alexandria to translate the books of Moses, and that they were lodged by Ptolemy in the isle of Pharos, he tells us in addition, that all the translators were kept apart from each other; but that, notwithstanding this, their translations, upon comparison, were found exactly to correspond, as it were, by Divine inspiration. From Justin Martyr we find, that in his time the story was that the seventy-two translators were shut up each in a separate cell, where no intercourse could possibly take place; but that the translations, when produced, were found to agree not only in sense but verbally, not varying even in a single syllable. Here we certainly find a miracle implied; and in the time of Justin the story must have been well established, since he mentions his having seen the cells himself. With respect to the number of the cells, however, there must have been, as there easily might be, some uncertainty, for Epiphanius mentions only thirty-six. But the story had been made to shape itself according to the fact; and it was reported in his time, that, instead of a cell being allotted to each translator, two were shut up in each cell, who having been employed from sunrise till the evening, translated in order, not merely the Pentateuch, but each of the books of the Old Testament, and they so completed their work, that there was not to be found the slightest difference in any of the thirty-six versions; an astonishing harmony, in which a singular miracle of Divine providence could not fail to be traced.

Now, if to these statements implicit credit be given, the question is decided as to the miraculous origin and consequent inspiration of the Septuagint. But to these stories there are several obvious objections. We do not for a moment assent to the principle of that objection which is urged by the learned and candid Dupin, who, among the Romanists, is almost singular in opposing the Divine origin of the LXX., when he asks why there should be seventy-two translators when twelve would have sufficed? For this is the very spirit of rationalism: “_I_ do not see why such should have been the case; and therefore it was _not_ the case.” To such an objection the answer of the equally learned Dr. Brett, among Protestants the chief vindicator of the Divine origin of the Septuagint, is more than sufficient, when he urges that we might as well deny that, on our authorized English version, fifty-two persons were employed, when by twelve, or even by two, the work might have been accomplished. Nor would he insist, with Dean Prideaux, that the stories must be rejected, because the Septuagint is written in the Alexandrian dialect; and that, therefore, it could not have been effected, according to the supposition, by Jews sent from Judea; for there is no reason to suppose that the Greek spoken in Palestine was much different from that used in Egypt, that language having been introduced into both countries only about fifty years before by the same people—the Macedonians. Indeed, a comparison of the language of the New Testament with that of the Septuagint will disarm this objection of its force. We may, indeed, afford to give up another objection, which has very plausibly been urged, though its character is rationalistic, viz. that to collect six learned men from each tribe would have been difficult, if not impossible, the ten tribes having been dispersed after the taking of Samaria; for we know that many individuals belonging to these tribes were incorporated with the Jews, and there may have been means still left for distinguishing them. But, after all these allowances, there is strong internal evidence against these stories, arising from the difference of the manner and the style in which the several books are translated. In some the Hebraisms are said to preserved, in others not; some books (the Pentateuch for instance, the Proverbs, Ezekiel, Amos, Judges, Kings, and many of the Psalms) are well executed, while the translation of Isaiah is bad, and that of Daniel was so decidedly incorrect, that it was rejected by Origen, and its place supplied by the version of Theodotion. Now, is it probable that, if the Septuagint had been, according to the accounts already given, the work of the same men, at the same time, and acting under a miraculous inspiration, such very material difference should exist between the several books? Our own authorized version, though made by different persons, and though some of the books may be more correctly rendered than others, nevertheless preserves a uniformity of style which stamps it as being all the work of the same age. And the fact that this is not the case with respect to the Septuagint, is a presumption against its being the work of the same men living at the same time. And this is a consideration which prepares us to regard the external evidence with some suspicion. When, indeed, we look to the external evidence, we find that the authority which was at first assumed only for the Pentateuch is gradually assumed for all the books of the Old Testament. In Aristeas we read of no miracle: the miracle was evidently gradually introduced and enlarged upon, until subsequent writers believed it to be a fact. And we are always and most justly suspicious of a story which thus

“Mobilitate viget viresque acquirit eundo.”

Each successive writer has added to the marvellous. And we are, therefore, justified in deducting from the account each marvellous addition. And when we have done this, what is the result? We find the simple fact, that, about the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and under the direction of Demetrius Phalereus, a translation into Greek of the Mosaic books was made by persons sent from Judea. We must indeed go a step further, and deduct from the original statement, the assertion that the translation was made “_by the direction_ of Demetrius Phalereus;” for though Demetrius was in great credit at Alexandria till the death of Soter, he was, immediately after that event, “disgraced by Philadelphus, and perished in confinement.” We cannot, therefore, attribute more than the original suggestion to Demetrius. But that, with this necessary deduction, we may fairly admit this, or at least the historical fact that it embodies, appears from the improbability of these stories having no foundation, and from the fact that both Ælian (_Var. Hist._ iii. 17) and Plutarch (_Opp._ t. ii. p. 189) inform us that Demetrius was appointed by one of the Ptolemies to preside over the drawing up of a code of laws, and had advised his sovereign to collect all the books he could which treated of political subjects, and in which doctrines were laid down which even their most familiar friends would not dare to mention to kings. It derives strength also from the circumstance, that the Samaritans contended with the Jews for the honour of being the authors of the Septuagint; pretending that Ptolemy, having heard of the disagreement between the two nations, caused a translation to be made of the Samaritan copy of the Septuagint, which he preferred to the copy he received from Jerusalem. Although this story is not corroborated, it is not impossible that a collation of the two copies may have taken place, care having evidently been taken to procure as good a version as possible. It may be proper to mention, that by Clemens Alexandrinus and by Eusebius, a quotation from an Alexandrian Jew and Peripatetic philosopher named Aristobulus has been preserved, in which he affirms that a Greek translation of the Old Testament was in existence anterior to the Septuagint, of which Plato and other Greek philosophers availed themselves. That some small portions of the ancient Scriptures may have been translated is far from impossible; but we cannot attach any weight to the unsupported testimony of a person who lived only 176 years before the Christian æra, and adduced in support of what was at the time a favourite theory with the Jews. His testimony, however, is of some importance, as proving that the Greek version of the Old Testament, which was then in use, was universally referred to the age of Ptolemy Philadelphus.

After taking into consideration all these various circumstances, all that we can satisfactorily say of the Septuagint is, that the Mosaic books were translated into Greek about 285 years before CHRIST, to which the other books were added from time to time, especially when, on occasion of the prohibition by Antiochus Epiphanes to read the law, the prophets used to be read publicly in the synagogues, and on the restoration of the law became “a second lesson.” It is generally admitted that the work was completed in the main parts prior to the middle of the second century, before the birth of our SAVIOUR; that it was used as a sort of authorized version by the Jews of Alexandria, and by the Hellenistic Jews in general; and that as such it is expressly quoted nearly eighty times in the writings of the New Testament, being indirectly referred to much more frequently. And thus, to adopt the very beautiful and pious language of Dr. Lightfoot, “the greatest authority of this translation appeareth in that the holy Greek of the New Testament doth so much follow it. For as GOD useth this translation as a harbinger to the fetching in of the Gentiles, so when it was grown into authority by the time of CHRIST’S coming, it seemed good to his infinite wisdom to add to its authority himself, the better to forward the building of the Church. And admirable it is to see with what sweetness and harmony the New Testament doth follow this translation sometimes beside the Old, to show that he who gave the Old can and may best expound it in the New.”—_Works_, iv. 32. See _Owen on the Septuagint: Hodius de Bib. Textibus Originalibus_.

SEPTUM. The enclosure of the holy table, made by the altar rails.

SEPULCHRE. A niche, generally at the north side of the altar, used in the scenic representations of our SAVIOUR’S burial and resurrection, on Good Friday and Easter, before the Reformation, and representing our LORD’S tomb, is called the Holy Sepulchre. It is sometimes quite plain, sometimes gorgeously adorned; the general subjects, where it is much decorated, being the Roman soldiers sleeping, on the base, and angels censing at the top. There is a remarkably fine series of these in the churches of Lincolnshire, and in Lincoln cathedral, perhaps the most beautiful in the kingdom.

SEQUESTRATION. This is a separating the thing in controversy from the possession of both the contending parties.

When a living becomes void by the death of an incumbent or otherwise, the ordinary is to send out his sequestration, to have the cure supplied, and to preserve the profits (after the expenses deducted) for the use of the successor. Sometimes a benefice is left under sequestration for many years together, namely, when it is of so small value that no clergyman, fit to serve the cure, will be at the charge of taking it by institution: in this case, the sequestration is committed sometimes to the curate only, sometimes to the curate and churchwardens jointly.

Sometimes the profits of a living are sequestered for neglect of duty: but that kind of sequestration most generally known and understood, because applicable to civil affairs, is upon the queen’s writ to the bishop to satisfy the debts of the incumbent.

This is where a judgment has been obtained in the law courts against a clergyman; and upon a _fieri facias_ directed to the sheriff to levy the debt and damages, he makes his return that the defendant in a clerk beneficed, having no lay fee. Whereupon a _levari facias_ is directed to the bishop to levy the same of his ecclesiastical goods, and by virtue thereof the property of the benefice shall be sequestered. In this case, the bishop may name the sequestrators himself, or may grant the sequestration to such persons as shall be named by the party who obtained the writ.

There are several other circumstances mentioned in books of ecclesiastical law, under which sequestration may take place; but it may be stated generally that, for any damages to which an incumbent may be made liable by civil action, the property of the benefice may also be made answerable by the process of sequestration. But it seems that the bishop is the party through whom this confiscation for the benefit of the creditor must take place. The sequestration is his act, to which he is bound by the queen’s writ; and it has been held that a bill filed in equity against sequestrators only was insufficient for want of parties. The bishop should be a party, for the sequestrator is accountable to him for what he receives.

SERAPHIM denotes an order of angels who surround the throne of the LORD. Derived from a Hebrew word, which signifies _fiery_. (See _Angels_.)

SERMONS are orations or discourses, delivered by the clergy of the Christian Church in their religious assemblies.

In the ancient Church, immediately after the reading of the psalms and lessons out of the Scriptures, before the catechumens were dismissed, followed the sermon, which the bishop, or some other appointed by him, made to the people. This, being done in the presence of the catechumens, was therefore reckoned a part of the _Missa Catechumenorum_ or ante-communion service. Such discourses were commonly termed _homilies_, from the Greek ὁμιλίαι, which signifies indifferently any discourse of instruction to the people. Among the Latins they were frequently called _tractatus_, and the preachers _tractatores_.

Preaching, anciently, was one of the chief offices of a bishop; insomuch that, in the African Churches, a presbyter was never known to preach before a bishop in his cathedral church, till St. Austin’s time. In the Eastern Church, presbyters were indeed allowed to preach before the bishop; but this was not to discharge him of the duty, for still he preached a sermon at the same time after them. In the lesser churches of the city and country, the office of preaching was devolved upon the presbyters; but deacons never were allowed to perform it. There are numberless passages in the writings of the Fathers, which speak of preaching as a duty indispensably incumbent on a bishop. Many canons of councils either suppose or enjoin it. And in the imperial laws there are several edicts of the secular power to the same purpose. Particularly in the Theodosian code, there is one jointly made by the three emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, which bears this title, _De munere seu officio episcoporum in prædicando verbo Dei_, “of the duty and office of bishops in preaching the word of GOD.”

It has been a question, whether laymen were ever allowed by authority to make sermons to the people. It is certain they did it in a private way, as catechists, in their catechetic schools at Alexandria and other places; but this was a different thing from public preaching in the church. Sometimes the monks, who were only laymen, took upon them to preach; but this was censured and opposed, as an usurpation of an office that did not belong to them. Yet in some cases a special commission was given to a layman to preach; as in the case of Origen, who was licensed by Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, to preach and expound the Scriptures in the church, before he was in orders. As to women, whatever gifts they could pretend to, they were never allowed to preach publicly in the church; agreeably to the apostolical rule, “Let your women keep silence in the churches,” &c. But they might teach those of their own sex, as private catechists, and to prepare them for baptism. And this was the office of the deaconesses. The Montanists were a noted sect for giving the liberty of preaching to women, under pretence of inspiration by the SPIRIT; for they had their prophetesses, their women-bishops, and women-presbyters.

Next to the persons, the manner in which the office of preaching was executed, comes to be considered. And, first, it is observable, that they had sometimes two or three sermons preached in the same assembly, first by the presbyters and then by the bishop. When two or more bishops happened to be present in the same assembly, it was usual for several of them to preach one after another, reserving the last place for the most honourable person. In some places they had sermons every day, especially in Lent, and the festival days of Easter. St. Chrysostom’s homilies were evidently preached in Lent, one day after another; and, in St. Augustine’s homilies, there are frequent references to the sermon made _heri_ and _hesterno die_. In many places they had sermons twice a day for the better edification of the people. But this is chiefly to be understood of cities and large churches. For in the country parishes there was not such frequent preaching.

The next thing to be observed is, their different sorts of sermons, and different ways of preaching. These are distinguished into four kinds; 1. Expositions of Scripture. 2. Panegyrical discourses upon the saints and martyrs. 3. Sermons upon particular times, occasions, and festivals. 4. Sermons upon particular doctrines, or moral subjects. There are examples of all these kinds in St. Chrysostom’s and St. Augustine’s homilies, the two great standards of preaching in the Greek and Latin Churches. But though most of these were studied and elaborate discourses, penned and composed beforehand, yet some were also extempore, spoken without any previous composition, and taken down in short-hand from the mouth of the preacher. Origen was the first that began the way of extempore preaching in the church. The catechetical discourses of St. Cyril are thought to be of this kind; for at the beginning of every one almost it is said in the title to be σχεδιασθεῖσα, which the critics translate _an extempore discourse_. Instances of this sort were very frequent among the Fathers of the ancient Church. And, in regard to this, they are wont frequently to mention the assistance of the SPIRIT in composing and preaching their sermons; by which they did not mean any kind of enthusiasm, but only the concurrence of the Spirit of GOD with their honest endeavours, as a blessing on their labours and studies.

Upon this account it was usual for the preacher to usher in his discourse with a short prayer for such Divine assistance. In this sense we are to understand St. Chrysostom, when he says, we must first pray, and then preach. Sometimes, before they began to preach, they used the common salutation, _Pax vobis, Peace be with you_; to which the people answered, _And with thy spirit_. And sometimes they prefaced the sermon with a short form of benediction, especially in times of calamity and distress, or of happy deliverances out of them. Sometimes they preached without any text, and sometimes upon more texts than one. Nor did they entertain their auditory with light and ludicrous matters, or fabulous and romantic stories, such as those with which preaching so much abounded in the age before the Reformation. Their subjects, as Gregory Nazianzen describes the choice of them, were commonly such as these: of the world’s creation, and the soul of man; of angels; of providence; of the formation of man, and his restoration; of CHRIST’S first and second coming, his passion, &c.; of the resurrection and judgment, &c.

And as they were careful in the choice of their subject, so were they in the manner of dressing it up, and delivering it, that they might answer the true ends of preaching. St. Augustine has laid down excellent rules for the practice of Christian eloquence; and if we will take his character of the ancient preachers, it was in short this: and their discourses were always upon weighty and heavenly matters, and their style answerable to the subject, being plain, elegant, majestic, and nervous; fitly adapted to instruct and delight, to convince and charm their hearers. It was no part of the ancient oratory to raise the affections of the auditory, either by gesticulations, or the use of external shows and representations of things in their sermons, as is now very common in the Romish Church. As to the length of their sermons, scarce any of them would last an hour, and many not half the time. And among those of St. Augustine there are many which a man may pronounce distinctly, and deliver decently, in eight minutes. They always concluded their sermons with a doxology to the HOLY TRINITY. And it is further observable, that the preacher usually delivered his sermon sitting, and the people heard it standing; though there was no certain rule about this, but the custom varied in different Churches.

It was a peculiar custom in the African Church, when the preacher chanced to cite some remarkable text in the middle of his sermon, for the people to join with him in repeating the close of it. St. Augustine takes notice of this in one of his sermons, where having begun those words of St. Paul, _The end of the commandment is_ ——, the people all cried out, _charity out of a pure heart_. But it was a much more general custom for the people to testify their esteem for the preacher, and approbation of his sermon, by public applauses and acclamations in the church. Thus we are told the people applauded St. Chrysostom’s sermons, some by tossing their garments and waving their handkerchiefs. Many auditors practised the art of notaries, and took down the sermons word for word as they were delivered. Hence we possess copies of sermons delivered extempore.—_Bingham._

The sermon in the Church of England is enjoined after the Nicene Creed, according to ancient custom: but nowhere else; although it is mentioned as discretionary in the marriage service, for which an exhortation, there given, may be substituted. But evening sermons have been customary time out of mind in some churches, as at St. Paul’s, e. g. and some other great churches. The sermon in Queen Elizabeth’s time was preached at the chapel royal in the afternoon, in order that it might not interfere with St. Paul’s Cross sermon.—_Strype, Annals, Pref._ Book i. ch. xxiii., Anno 1561.

SERVICE. “The common prayers of the Church, commonly called _Divine service_.”—_Preface to the Book of Common Prayer._ All Divine offices celebrated in the church constitute part of the Divine _service_: that is, the outward worship which all God’s servants render him. The term however is now used in a technical sense peculiar to the English Church, to signify those stated parts of the Liturgy which are set to music, as distinguished from those anthems, the words of which are not a matter of settled regulation. The term is now generally restricted to the Te Deum, and other canticles in Morning and Evening Prayer; and all the parts of the Communion Service appointed to be sung, including also the responses to the Commandments. The early Church musicians, however, set the whole service to music; (and hence the term;) that is, the pieces, (or versicles before the Psalms,) the Venite, one or more chants for the Psalms, the Te Deum and canticles, the versicles and responses after the Creed, the Amens, the Litany, and the Communion Office. The most perfect service, in the enlarged and proper sense, which exists in the Church of England, is Tallis’s, published in Dr. Boyer’s Cathedral Music, and since republished and corrected by a second Edition. Services are as old as the Reformation, and have ever constituted an integral part of the choral system as observed in cathedral churches and colleges.—_Jebb._

SEVEN SACRAMENTS. (See _Sacrament_.) The Papists extend and enforce the word sacrament to five ordinances which are not sacraments in the strict sense. Against these our 25th Article is directed, which is as follows:

“Sacraments ordained by CHRIST be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s professions, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and GOD’S good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him.

“There are two sacraments ordained of CHRIST our LORD in the gospel; that is to say, baptism and the supper of the LORD.

“Those five, commonly called sacraments, that is to say, confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction, are not to be counted for sacraments of the gospel, being such as have grown, partly of the corrupt following of the apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of sacraments with baptism and the LORD’S supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of GOD.

“The sacraments were not ordained of CHRIST to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as the apostle St. Paul saith.”

Peter Lombard saying, that baptism, confirmation, the blessing of bread, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, are sacraments of the New Testament, the Papists have thence gathered, and ever since held, that there are seven sacraments instituted by CHRIST, truly and properly so called; insomuch that, in the Council of Trent, they determined that whosoever said there are more or less, should be accursed. Now our Church, not much fearing their curse, hath here declared, that only two of them, to wit, baptism and the eucharist, are properly sacraments of the New Testament, and that the other five are not to be accounted so; not but that, as the word _sacrament_ was anciently used for any sacred sign or ceremony, it may, in some sense, be applied to these also; but, as it is here expressed, those five have not the like nature of sacraments with baptism and the LORD’S supper. They may call them sacraments if they please; but they are not such sacraments as baptism and the LORD’S supper are, and therefore not sacraments properly so called. For that these two are sacraments properly so called, is acknowledged on both sides; and therefore, whatsoever is a sacrament properly so called, must have the like nature with them, so as to agree with them in all those things wherein their sacramental nature consisteth, that is, in such things wherein they two most nearly agree with one another: for that wherein the species do most nearly agree with one another, must needs be their general nature. Now, there are several things wherein these two do so agree; for they are both instituted by CHRIST. They have both external signs and symbols determined in the gospel, which represent inward and spiritual grace unto us; yea, and they have both promises annexed to them: whereas the other five agree with these in none of these things, or, howsoever, none of them agree in all of them, and, by consequence, cannot be sacraments properly so called.

I. First, They do not agree with them in their institution from CHRIST. That baptism and the LORD’S supper were instituted by CHRIST, they cannot deny; but that the other were, we do.

1. As, first, for _confirmation_, which we confess was a custom anciently used in the Church of CHRIST, and still ought to be retained, even for children after baptism to be offered to the bishop, that they might receive the HOLY GHOST by prayers, and the laying on of hands. But some of the Papists themselves acknowledge, that this was never instituted and ordained by CHRIST as the other sacraments were; neither did the Fathers use this as any distinct sacrament of itself, but as the perfection and consummation of the sacrament of baptism; and the chrism or ointment which they used was only a ceremony annexed to baptism also, as the cross and other ceremonies were.

2. And as for _penance_, which they define to be a sacrament of the remission of sins which are committed after baptism, I would willingly know where or when CHRIST ever instituted such a sacrament? What though he commanded all men to repent, is every command of CHRIST the institution of a sacrament? Or is it outward penance that is here commanded? Or, rather, is it not inward and true repentance? And what though CHRIST said, “Those sins that you forgive, they are forgiven;” what matter what form, what signs of sacrament, were appointed and instituted in these words?

3. And so for _orders_, or the ordination of ministers, we know it is a thing instituted of CHRIST: must it needs be, therefore, a sacrament, or instituted as a sacrament? Because CHRIST ordained that bishops, priests, and deacons should be ordained, doth it therefore follow that he intended and instituted their ordination as a sacrament?

4. And as for _matrimony_, we know their corrupt translation has it, “And this is a great sacrament,” (Eph. v. 32,) instead of “this is a great mystery,” or secret, as the Syriac and Arabic read it; and shall their false translation of the Scripture be a sufficient ground for CHRIST’S institution of a sacrament?

5. And, lastly, for _extreme unction_, which Bellarmine tells us “is truly and properly a sacrament, wherein the organs of the senses, the eyes, nostrils, lips, hands, feet, and reins, in those that are about to die, are anointed with exorcised oil.” What institution have we for this sacrament in the gospel? Yes, say they, the apostles anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them. (Mark vi. 13.) It is very good; the apostles’ practice and example were the institution of a sacrament. By this rule, whatsoever the apostles did must be a sacrament; and so plucking off the ears of corn must be a sacrament too at length. But certainly, if example must be the ground of institution, anointing the eyes of the blind with clay and spittle must be much more a sacrament than the anointing of the sick with oil; for it was the apostles only that did this, but it was our SAVIOUR himself that did that. (John ix. 6.) But the apostle saith, “Is any one sick amongst you? let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the LORD.” (James v. 14.) It is true: but what analogy is there betwixt this anointing of the apostles and the extreme unction of the Papists? This was to be applied to any that were sick, “Is any one sick amongst you?” but theirs only to such as are past all hopes of recovery: the apostles’ was to be done by several elders; the Papists’ only by one priest: the apostles’ was to be performed with simple oil; the Papists’ with consecrated and exorcised oil. So that the Papists’ extreme unction cannot possibly lay claim to any institution from that place, as Cajetan himself acknowledged.

II. And as for external signs and symbols, analogically representing inward spiritual grace, which constitute the very form of the sacraments of baptism and the LORD’S supper, it is in vain to look for the like in the other sacraments, falsely so called, as is observed in the Article itself. For example: what is the sign in penance? Or, if there be a sign, what is the grace that is analogically represented by it? I know they cannot agree amongst themselves, what is the form or sign in this sacrament? Some say the words of absolution, others absolution itself, others imposition of hands; but whichsoever of these we take, they cannot be such signs or symbols as are in baptism and the LORD’S supper. For there is water, and bread, and wine, all substances; whereas these are all actions, and so accidents. The like may be said also of confirmation and orders, which have no such visible sign, howsoever not appointed by CHRIST. And so for matrimony too, there is no visible sign of any invisible grace can possibly be fastened upon it. To say that the priest’s words, or the parties’ mutual consent, is the form or sign, is a mere evasion: for the parties’ consent is an invisible thing, and therefore cannot be a visible sign: the words of the priest are mere words, which may be heard indeed, but cannot be seen, and so cannot be any visible sign. Neither are words significative elements, as bread and wine are, and therefore cannot be the signs of such sacraments as they be. And for extreme unction, there is, I confess, an external sign in it, even unction; but what analogy hath this external sign to any internal grace? Two things, they say, are represented by it, bodily health and forgiveness of sins; but is bodily health an inward grace? Or, suppose it was, what similitude is there betwixt that and oil, or unction? Forgiveness of sins, I know, is a spiritual grace; but none of them durst ever yet undertake to show the analogy betwixt the outward sign and this invisible grace. And seeing there is no analogy betwixt the oil and remission of sins, that cannot be looked upon as any sacramental sign or symbol, as water and wine are in the other sacraments, exactly representing the inward spiritual grace that is signified by them. To all which we might add also, that it is the nature of a sacrament to have promises annexed to them—promises of spiritual things. And what promises do we find in Scripture made to matrimony, to confirmation, to orders, and the rest.

But whatsoever other things the Papists would obtrude upon us as sacraments, it is certain that we find our SAVIOUR solemnly instituting two, and but two, sacraments in the New Testament; to wit, these here mentioned, baptism and the LORD’S supper. And, therefore, when the apostle compares the law with the gospel, he instances these two sacraments only, and none else: “And were all baptized into Moses in the cloud, and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat.” (1 Cor. x. 2, 3.) And he again joins these two together, saying, “For by one SPIRIT are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one spirit.” (xii. 13.) And thus do the Fathers observe how, when one of the soldiers pierced our SAVIOUR’S side, and there came out blood and water, (John xix. 34,) the two sacraments of the New Testament were thereby intimated to us.—_Beveridge._

SEXAGESIMA. (See _Septuagesima_.)

SEXTON; from _Sacristan_. The sexton was originally regarded as the keeper of the holy things devoted to Divine worship: he is appointed by the minister or parishioners according to custom; and his salary is according to the custom of each parish, or is settled by the parish vestry. In the case of Olive _v._ Ingram it was held, that a woman is as capable of being elected to this office as a man, and that women may have a voice in the election. The duty of a sexton is to keep the church and pews cleanly swept and sufficiently aired; to make graves, and open vaults for the burial of the dead; to provide (under the churchwarden’s direction) candles, &c. for lighting the church; bread and wine, and other necessaries, for the communion, and also water for baptisms; to attend the church during Divine service, in order to open the pew doors for the parishioners, keep out dogs, and prevent disturbances, &c. It has been held that if a sexton be removed without sufficient cause, a mandamus will lie for his restitution. But where it appeared that the office was held only during pleasure, and not for life, the court refused to interfere. The salary, however, generally depends on the annual vote of the parishioners.

SHAFT. The central portion of a pillar, resting on the base, and supporting the capital. (See _Pillar_.)

SHAKERS. A party of enthusiasts left England for America in 1774, and settled in the province of New York, where the society soon increased, and received the ludicrous denomination of _Shakers_, from the practice of shaking and dancing. They affected to consider themselves as forming the only true Church, and their preachers as possessed of the apostolic gift: the wicked, they thought, would only be punished for a time, except those who should be so incorrigibly depraved as to fall from _their_ Church. They disowned baptism and the eucharist, not as in themselves wrong, but as unnecessary in the new dispensation, which they declared was opening upon mankind; and this was the _Millennium_, in which, however, they expected that CHRIST would appear personally only to his saints. Their leader was Anna Leese, whom they believed to be the woman mentioned in the Apocalypse, as clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. The successors of this _elect body_ have been, they say, as perfect as she was, and have possessed, like her, unreserved intercourse with angels and departed spirits, and the power of imparting spiritual gifts.

SHECHINAH. (_Hebr._) By this word the Hebrews meant the visible manifestation of the Divine presence in the temple of Jerusalem. It was a bright cloud, resting over the propitiatory or mercy-seat; from whence GOD gave forth his oracles with an articulate voice, when he was consulted by the high priest in favour of the people. Hence GOD is often said in Scripture to sit upon the cherubims, or between the cherubims, because the cherubims shadowed with their wings the mercy-seat, over which the Shechinah resided.

The Rabbins tell us, that the Shechinah first resided in the tabernacle prepared by Moses in the wilderness, and that it descended therein on the day of its consecration. From thence it passed into the sanctuary of Solomon’s temple, on the day of its dedication by that prince; where it continued to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Chaldeans, and was never after seen.

The Mohammedans pretend the Shechinah was in the shape of a leopard; and that, in time of war, when the ark of the covenant, over which it resided, was carried into the field of battle, it raised itself up, and sent forth such a dreadful cry, as threw the enemy into the utmost confusion. Others of them imagine it to have had the figure of a man, and say, that, when it was carried into the army, it stood up upon its feet, and came forth like a vehement wind, which, rushing upon the enemy, put them to flight.

SHEWBREAD. The name given to those loaves of bread which the Hebrew priests placed, every sabbath day, upon the golden table in the sanctuary. The Hebrew literally signifies _bread of faces_, these loaves being square, and having, as it were, four faces, or four sides. They are called _shewbread_ by the Greek and Latin interpreters, because they were exposed to public view before the ark. The table on which they were placed was called _the table of shewbread_.

The shewbread consisted of twelve loaves, according to the number of the tribes. These were served up hot on the sabbath day, and at the same time the stale ones, which had been exposed during the whole week, were taken away. It was not lawful for any one to eat of these loaves, but the priests only. David, indeed, compelled by urgent necessity, broke through this restriction. This offering was accompanied with salt and frankincense, which was burnt upon the table at the time when they set on fresh loaves.

Authors are not agreed as to the manner in which the loaves of shewbread were ranged upon the table. Some think there were three piles of them, of four in each; others say, there were but two piles, of six loaves in each. The Rabbins tell us that, between every two loaves, there were two golden pipes, supported by forks of the same metal, whose ends rested upon the ground, to convey air to the loaves, to hinder them from growing mouldy.

SHRINE. The places where something sacred, or a relic, is deposited.

SHRIVE. To administer confession.

SHROVE TUESDAY. The day before Ash Wednesday, so called in the Church of England from the old Saxon word _shrive_, _shrif_, or _shrove_, which, in that language, signifies to _confess_; it being our duty to confess our sins to GOD on that day, in order to receive the blessed sacrament of the eucharist, and thereby qualify ourselves for a more religious observance of the holy time of Lent immediately ensuing.

SICK, COMMUNION OF. (See _Communion of the Sick_.)

SICK, VISITATION OF. By Canon 76, “When any person is dangerously sick in any parish, the minister or curate, having knowledge thereof, shall resort unto him or her, (if the disease be not known, or probably suspected, to be infectious,) to instruct and comfort them in their distress, according to the order of the communion book if he be no preacher, or if he be a preacher, then as he shall think most needful and convenient.” And by the rubric, before the office for the Visitation of the Sick, “When any person is sick, notice shall be given thereof to the minister of the parish, who shall go to the sick person’s house, and use the office there appointed. And the minister shall examine the sick person whether he repent him truly of his sins, and be in charity with all the world; exhorting him to forgive, from the bottom of his heart, all persons that have offended him; and if he hath offended any other, to ask them forgiveness; and where he hath done injury or wrong to any man, that he may make amends to the utmost of his power. And if he hath not before disposed of his goods, let him then be admonished to make his will, and to declare his debts what he oweth, and what is owing to him, for the better discharge of his conscience, and the quietness of his executors. But men should often be put in remembrance to take order for the settling of their temporal estates, while they are in health. And the minister should not omit earnestly to move such sick persons, as are of ability, to be liberal to the poor.” (See _Absolution_, _Communion of Sick_, _Visitation of Sick_.)

SIDESMAN. It was usual for bishops in their visitations, to summon some credible persons out of every parish, whom they examined on oath concerning the condition of the church, and other affairs relating to it. Afterwards these persons became standing officers in several places, especially in great cities; and when personal visitations were a little disused, and when it became a custom for the parishioners to repair the body of the church, which began about the fifteenth century, these officers were still more necessary, and then they were called _Testes Synodales_ or _Juratores Synodi_; some called them synods-men, and now they are corruptly called _sidesmen_. They are chosen every year, according to the custom of the place, and their business is to assist the churchwardens in inquiring into things relating to the church, and making presentment of such matters as are punishable by the ecclesiastical laws. Hence they are also called _Questmen_; but now the whole office for the most part is devolved upon the churchwardens, though not universally. (See _Churchwardens_.)

SIGNIFICAVIT. The writ _de excommunicato capiendo_ was called a _significavit_ from the word at the beginning of the writ: _Rex vicecomiti L. salutem_. SIGNIFICAVIT _nobis venerabilis Pater, H. L. Episcopus, &c._

ST. SIMON AND ST. JUDE’S DAY. A holy-day appointed by the Church for the commemoration of these saints, observed in our Church on the 28th October.

The first is St. Simon, surnamed the Canaanite and Zelotes, which two names are, in fact, the same; for the Hebrew term, _Canaan_, signifies a zealot.

There was a sect of men called Zealots, about the time of CHRIST, in Judea, who, out of a pretended zeal for GOD’S honour, would commit the most grievous outrages: they would choose and ordain high priests out of the basest of the people, and murder men of the highest and most illustrious extraction. And it is highly probable that this Simon, before his conversion and call, was one of this hot-headed sect; or, at least, that there was some fire or fierceness conspicuous in his temper that occasioned his being distinguished by that warm name. He was one of the twelve apostles, and a relation of our blessed LORD; either his half-brother, being one of Joseph’s sons by another wife, or a cousin by his mother’s side.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By “deadly sin” in this Article we are not to understand such sins as, in the Church of Rome, are called “mortal,” in opposition to others that are “venial:” as if some sins, though offences against GOD, and violations of his law, could be of their own nature such slight things, that they deserved only temporal punishment, and were to be expiated by some piece of penance or devotion, or the communication of the merits of others. The Scripture nowhere teaches us to think so slightly of the majesty of GOD, or of his law. There is a “curse” upon every one “that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them” (Gal. iii. 10); and the same curse must have been on us all, if CHRIST had not redeemed us from it: “the wages of sin is death.” And St. James asserts, that there is such a complication of all the precepts of the law of GOD, both with one another, and with the authority of the Lawgiver, that “he who offends in one point is guilty of all.” (James ii. 10, 11.) So since GOD has in his word given us such dreadful apprehensions of his wrath, and of the guilt of sin, we dare not soften these to a degree below the majesty of the eternal GOD, and the dignity of his most holy laws. But after all, we are far from the conceit of the Stoics, who made all sins alike. We acknowledge that some sins of ignorance and infirmity may consist with a state of grace; which is either quite destroyed, or at least much eclipsed and clouded, by other sins, that are more heinous in their nature, and more deliberately gone about. It is in this sense that the word “deadly sin” is to be understood in the Article; for though in the strictness of justice every sin is “deadly,” yet in the dispensation of the gospel those sins only are “deadly” that do deeply wound the conscience, and that drive away grace.—_Bp. Burnet._

Every sin is in its nature deadly, since “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. vi. 23): and every sin is committed against the HOLY GHOST, as well as against the FATHER and the SON; but still pardonable, if it be not that sin which is emphatically styled “the sin against the HOLY GHOST;” and that is “blasphemy against the HOLY GHOST.” (Matt. xii. 31, 32; Mark iii. 28–30.) Of which sin St. Jerome says, that “they only are guilty, who, though in miracles they see the very work of GOD, yet slander them, and say that they are done by the devil; and ascribe to the operation of that evil spirit, and not to the Divine power, all those mighty signs and wonders which were wrought for the confirmation of the gospel.” In relation to all other sins, we are, as Clement of Rome observes, “to fix our eyes on the blood of CHRIST, which was shed for our salvation, and hath obtained the grace of repentance for the whole world.”—_Archdeacon Welchman._

And “the doors,” says Clement of Alexandria, “are open to every one, who in truth, and with his whole heart, returns to GOD; and the FATHER most willingly receives a son who truly repents.” This is the general tenor of Scripture, in which all men are invited to repentance without any discrimination or exception. And we are told, even under the Mosaic dispensation, that “though our sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” (Isaiah i. 18.) And the exhortations to amendment and reformation, contained in the Epistles, are all addressed to persons who had been already baptized, and who had been guilty of faults or sins subsequent to their baptism.—_Bp. Tomline._

The Church of Rome, in order to establish its dangerous doctrine of the merit of good works, which is equally opposed to Scripture and to fact, divides sin into two classes: _mortal_ sin, that sin which is in its nature gross, and is committed knowingly, wilfully, deliberately; and _venial_ sin, under which head are classed all sins of ignorance and negligence, and such as are considered small in their nature.

It is difficult to distinguish, in some instances, between mortal sins and venial sins. But they form two distinct classes of sin, differing not merely in degree, but in genus or kind.

Mortal sins render the transgressors children of wrath and enemies of GOD; but it is in regard to venial sins that the error or heresy is propounded. It is stated that in this mortal life even holy and justified persons fall into daily venial sins, which, nevertheless, do not in any way affect or detract from their holy character, “and which do not exclude the transgressor from the grace of GOD.”

It is here to be observed that we do not deny that a distinction is to be made between sins of greater or less enormity. But the error of the Romanist is this—that he makes the two classes of sin to differ not only in enormity and degree, which we admit to be the case, but also in their nature and kind. No amount of venial sins, according to Bellarmine, would ever make a mortal sin.

We also make a distinction of sins: we call some sins deadly, and others infirmities; we consider the commission of some sins as not inconsistent with a state of grace, whereas by others the HOLY SPIRIT may be grieved, done despite unto, and quenched, so that the sinner shall be spiritually dead: he shall die a second death.

But here is the difference between us and the Romanists: although we speak of some sins as of less, and of others as of greater enormity, we consider every sin to be in its nature mortal; that by many little sins a man may be damned, even as a ship may be sunk by a weight of sand as well as by a weight of lead; and that they are not damnable to _us_, only from the constant intercession of CHRIST. Whereas negligences and ignorances, and sins of lesser enormity, are by the Romanists not regarded as sins at all, in the proper sense of the word.

Hence _we_ are for ever relying directly upon CHRIST for pardon and for mercy, while they rely upon their own merits. They appeal to the justice of GOD; we, knowing that by his justice we must be condemned, confide in his mercy. _They_ say that venial sin is not in itself mortal; _we_ regard all sin as mortal in itself, but rejoice to know that “if any man sin” (any man in a state of justification, and, on that account, not sinning habitually and wilfully) “we have an advocate with the FATHER, JESUS CHRIST the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins.”

The doctrine of the Church of England leads men to CHRIST, and nails them prostrate to the foot of the cross; whereas the Romish doctrine, though taking men to CHRIST in the first instance, soon removes them from the only rock of salvation, and induces them to rely upon an arm of flesh. Our doctrine lays low in the dust all human pride, it annihilates every notion of human merit, and exalts the SAVIOUR as our all in all; the Romish doctrine, establishing the idea of human merit and supererogatory works, drives some to despair, and inflames others with spiritual pride, while it terminates in practical idolatry. Our doctrine is primitive, catholic, and scriptural, as well as Protestant, ever reminding us that “there is one GOD, and one Mediator between GOD and men, the man CHRIST JESUS;” while their doctrine is mediæval, scholastic, heretical, and opposed to the truth as it is in JESUS.

SI QUIS. (See _Orders, Ordination_.) In the Church of England, before a person is admitted to holy orders, a notice called the “_Si quis_” (from the Latin of the words _if any person_, occurring in the form) is published in the church of the parish where the candidate usually resides, in the following form: “Notice is hereby given, that A. B., now resident in this parish, intends to offer himself a candidate for the holy office of a deacon [or priest] at the ensuing ordination of the Lord Bishop of ——; and if any person knows any just cause or impediment, for which he ought not to be admitted into holy orders, he is now to declare the same, or to signify the same forthwith to the bishop.”

This is a proper occasion, of which the conscientious layman would take advantage, of testifying, if he knows anything which unfits the candidate for the sacred office to which he aspires: if no objection be made, a certificate is forwarded to the bishop, of the publication of the _Si quis_, with no impediment alleged, by the officiating minister and the churchwardens.

In the case of a bishop, the _Si quis_ is affixed by an officer of the Arches on the door of Bow Church, and he then also makes three proclamations for opposers to appear, &c.

SITTING. This posture is allowed in our Church at the reading of the lessons in the Morning and Evening Prayer, and also of the first lesson or Epistle in the Communion Service, but at no other time except during the sermon. Even thus we have somewhat relaxed the rule of the primitive Church, in which the people stood, even to hear sermons. Some ultra-Protestant sects have irreverently used sitting as the posture of receiving the LORD’S supper, which ought to be accounted the act of deepest devotion. Some Arians in Poland have done this even for a worse reason: i. e. to show that they do not believe CHRIST to be GOD, but only their fellow-creature.

SOCIETIES. The Church itself is the proper channel for the circulation of the Bible and Prayer Book, for the establishment of missions, and the erection of sanctuaries; the Church acting under her bishops, and by her representatives in synod. But, under the existing circumstances of the Church of England, not only convocations, but diocesan synods have been for many years suspended: had not this been the case, all our plans for the circulation of the Scriptures, the institution of missions, and so forth, would have been conducted by committees of the convocation, in the name and by the avowed authority of the Church. At present we are obliged to promote these great objects by means of voluntary associations. A society, to be a Church society, must be confined exclusively to members of the Church. If Dissenters are admitted to its government, it is as much a Dissenting society as a Church society, i. e. it ceases to be a Church society, strictly speaking, since by a Church society we mean a society distinguished from a Dissenting society. (See the article on _Schism_.)

But, admitting that we are to unite for religious purposes with Churchmen only, are laymen by themselves, or laymen assisted by deacons or presbyters, competent to organize a religious society? And on the authority of the text, “Obey them that rule over you,” we give our answer in the negative. There is in every Church, and every diocese of a Church, a higher authority, to which presbyters, deacons, and laymen are to defer: the archbishop of the province and all his suffragans, in matters relating to the Church of the province generally; the diocesan, in matters relating to a particular diocese. So the first Christians always understood the passage to which we have referred. “Let no one,” says Ignatius, the contemporary of the apostles and the disciple of St. John, “do any of the things pertaining to the Church separately from the bishop.” “Let presbyters and deacons,” say the Apostolic Canons, “attempt nothing without the bishop’s allowance, for it is he to whom the LORD’S people are committed.”—_Canon_ 39. Quotations might be multiplied to the same effect.

We may here, then, discover another principle. In forming our institutions we ought to have the episcopal sanction for what we do. Indeed it seems ridiculous to call ourselves Episcopalians, and then to act contrary to this law: though by the way, in the very first ages of the Church, some there were who did so. “Some,” says St. Ignatius, the disciple of St. John, to whom we have before alluded, “call him bishop, and yet do all things without him; but these seem not to me to have a good conscience, but rather to be hypocrites and scorners.” We ought not to be surprised, therefore, at this inconsistency in our own age, when even the apostolical times were not exempt from it. But here observe, it is not the sanction of a bishop, or the sanction of two or three bishops, that suffices, but the sanction of _the_ bishop, the diocesan. A bishop may intrude into another man’s diocese, and thus violate the canons of the Church, and be himself liable to canonical censures: his example is rather to be avoided than followed. Yet it is necessary to mention this, because some persons think that all must be right if they obtain for a favourite society the names of one or two bishops, while they set aside the authority of the diocesan, against whom, perhaps, they are acting. This is in fact, when we come to examine the case, rather a specious evasion than an observance of the system of the Church, which would lead us to place every institution under the government of the diocesan.

But bishops are only, like ourselves, fallible men; and therefore we are not to suppose that the converse of this proposition must be true, that because no society, except such as has the diocesan at its head, can be worthy of a churchman’s support, therefore every society which _has_ a diocesan’s sanction must have a claim upon each inhabitant of that diocese. The Church defers to her bishops as the executive power, but she does not regard them as irresponsible, or infallible, or despotic. She does not intend that they should transgress Scripture, and lord it over GOD’S heritage. To them, as well as us, the principles of the Church are to be a guide; and they, like ourselves, may err occasionally in the application of these principles. And in deciding whether a society is conducted on Church principles, it is not to the diocesan, but to the society itself, that we are to refer. And the question is, not merely whether the diocesan belongs to it, but also whether the society places the diocesan in his right position? We are to vindicate the rights of the diocesan, even though the diocesan do himself neglect them, for these rights pertain, not to him personally, but to the Church. We are therefore to ascertain, whether he is recognised by the society _as_ the diocesan, as the spiritual ruler presiding _of right_ over the society; so recognised as that, if he refused to sanction its proceedings, it would retire from the field; whether it receives him out of deference to his spiritual character, or only out of respect for his temporal rank; where, as in this country, temporal rank, a circumstance of minor consideration, not indeed worthy of notice, is conceded to him? If the society does not do this, it is not one whit improved, so far as its constitution is concerned, though a diocesan may peradventure be one of its members. Here then we come to another principle, and we may sum up what has been said, by asserting that a religious society, conducted on strictly Church principles, should consist of churchmen only, and should be under the superintendence, if instituted for general purposes, of the archbishops, and all the bishops of both provinces of the Church of England; if for diocesan purposes, of the diocesan; if for parochial purposes, of the parochial clergy, who act as the bishop’s delegates.

SOCINIANS. (See _Unitarians_.) A sect of heretics, so called from their founder, Faustus Socinus, a native of Sienna in Italy, born in 1539. Their tenets are,

I. That the eternal FATHER was the one only GOD; that the WORD was no more than an expression of the GODHEAD, and had not existed from all eternity; and that JESUS CHRIST was GOD, no otherwise than by his superiority above all creatures, who were put in subjection to him by the FATHER.

II. That JESUS CHRIST was not a mediator between GOD and men, but sent into the world to serve as a pattern of their conduct; and that he ascended up to heaven only, as it were, to take a journey thither.

III. That the punishment of hell will last but for a certain time, after which both body and soul will be destroyed. And,

IV. That it is not lawful for princes to make war.

These four tenets were what Socinus defended with the greatest zeal: in other matters, he was a Lutheran, or a Calvinist. The truth is, he did but refine upon the errors of all the Anti-Trinitarians who had gone before him.

The Socinians spread extremely in Poland, Lithuania, and Transylvania. Their chief school was at Racow, and there all their first books were published. Their sentiments are explained at large in their catechism, printed several times, under the title of _Catechesis Ecclesiarum Polonicarum unum Deum patrem, illiusque filium unigenitum, uno cum Sancto Spiritu, ex sacra scriptura confitentium_. They were exterminated out of Poland in 1655; since which time they have been chiefly sheltered in Holland; where, though their public meetings have been prohibited, they find means to conceal themselves under the names of Arminians and Anabaptists.

SOFFIT. The under-surface of an arch. In the nomenclature of mouldings, the _soffit-plane_ is the plane at right angles with the face of the wall, which is the direction of the soffit in its simplest form. Courses of mouldings occupying the _soffit-plane_ and the _wall-plane_, to the exclusion of the _chamfer-plane_, indicate Norman or Early English work.

SOLFIDIANS. Those who rest on faith alone for salvation, without any connexion with works; or who judge themselves to be CHRIST’S because they believe they are.

SOMPNOUR. (_Chaucer._) An officer employed to summon delinquents to appear in ecclesiastical courts; now called an apparitor.

SON OF GOD. (See JESUS, LORD.) “The SON, which is the WORD of the FATHER, begotten from everlasting of the FATHER, the very and eternal GOD, and of one substance with the FATHER, took man’s nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, of her substance; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the GODHEAD and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one CHRIST, very GOD and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his FATHER to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.”—_Article_ II. He is the true, proper, and only Son of GOD; begotten “from the beginning;” “before the foundation of the world” (1 Pet. i. 20; 1 John i. 1); as he “came down from heaven,” (John vi. 38,) where he had “glory with the FATHER,” “before the world was” (John xvii. 5); as he is himself called GOD, “one” with the “FATHER,” (John x. 30,) being of the same Divine essence communicated to him, (Matt. xi. 27; John v. 26; xiii. 3; xvi. 15; Rom. xiv. 9,) and exercising a power above that of all created beings. (Eph. i. 21; Heb. i. 2, 13; 1 Pet. iii. 22.) By him the world and “all things were made,” (John i. 3, 10; Col. i. 16; Heb. i. 2, 10,) “by whom are all things,” (1 Cor. viii. 6,) for “He is before all things, and by him all things consist.” (Col. i. 17.) “All things are put in subjection under his feet,” and “nothing is left that is not put under him.” (Heb. ii. 8; Ps. viii. 6; 1 Cor. xv. 27; Eph. i. 22.) Of the manner and nature of this generation we are ignorant, and must not endeavour to be wise above what is written. We find our LORD declared by prophecy to be a “son begotten,” (Ps. ii. 7,) and acknowledged, by inspiration, as “the only begotten SON.” (John iii. 16; i. 14; 1 John iv. 9.) That he is “the image of the invisible GOD, the first-born of (or before) every creature, for by him were all things created” (Col. i. 15, 16); and who thus “being in the form of GOD,” “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,” (Heb. i. 3,) was without “robbery equal to GOD.” (Phil. ii. 6.) That he “is in the bosom of the FATHER,” (John i. 18,) and is “one” with him. (John x. 30.) Many similes were imagined by the ancients to elucidate this: as the sun producing light—a fountain its streams, &c.; but too much caution cannot be used on this subject, lest things are conceived or uttered by us derogatory to the ineffable nature and peculiar attributes of the Divine majesty.

He was foretold in Scripture as “the SON of GOD,” (Luke i. 35,) and acknowledged on earth—by men inspired (Matt. xvi. 16; John i. 34; xx. 31; Acts ix. 20);—by devils (Matt. viii. 29; Mark iii. 11; Luke iv. 41);—and by the world (Matt. xiv. 33; John i. 49; xi. 27,) as he shall be in heaven (Rev. ii. 18). Therefore he addresses GOD as his “FATHER,” (Mark xiv. 36, &c.,) and claims to himself the title from men, (John v. 18, 22–25; ix. 35 with 37,) though for this he was accused, by the Jews, of blasphemy (John x. 36; xix. 7). He is the only SON, also, by reason of his resurrection from the dead, there being none but him begotten by such generation.

SONG. As applied to sacred subjects, it is one of the classes of vocal praise mentioned in Scripture: according to the enumeration of the apostle, (Eph. v. 19,) ψαλμοῖς, καὶ ὕμνοις, καὶ ψοαῖς πνευματικαῖς. (Psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, or odes.) Wolfius, in his note on Eph. v. 14, quotes an opinion of _Heumannus_, in his _Pœcile_, (ii. lib. iii. frag. 390,) that this verse of the apostle’s, “Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and CHRIST shall give thee life,” is a fragment of an ancient Christian hymn or spiritual song: and remarks that there is a natural rhythm in the original:

ἔγειραι ὁ καθεύσων, καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ χριστός.

However this may be, it is to be hoped that the recent discoveries of early Christian hymns in the Syriac language may throw light on this subject; and here Dr. Burgess’s late translation of the hymns of Ephrem Syrus may be consulted with advantage. The Evening Hymn of the first or second century, preserved by St. Basil, and given in _Routh’s Reliquiæ Sacræ_, is an interesting illustration of the ancient Christian songs.

The word _song_ in the Old Testament is in the Hebrew _Shir_. Many of the Psalms are so denominated: sometimes simply _Shir_, at other times _Mizmor Shir_ (Psalm-Song), or _Shir Mizmor_ (Song-Psalm). It is not, perhaps, possible to distinguish them in style or subject from other Psalms. The word appears by comparison of different passages of Scripture to mean anything sung to instrumental music, as these instruments are called in Scripture instruments of _Shir_, i. e. accompanying vocal music. See 2 Chron. v. 13.

SONGS OF DEGREES. (See _Degrees_, and _Psalms_.)

SORTES. A method of divination borrowed by some superstitious Christians from the heathen, and condemned by several councils. The heathen, opening Virgil at hazard, took the first words they found as indicating future events, and this process they called _Sortes Virgilianæ_. The superstitious imitators of this custom used the Bible in the same way, and called their divinations _Sortes sacræ_.

SOUTHCOTTIANS. The deluded followers of one Johanna Southcot, a servant girl at Exeter, who, towards the close of the last century, gave herself out as the woman in the wilderness, mentioned in the Apocalypse, and declared that she held converse with spirits, good and bad, and with the HOLY GHOST himself. She gave sealed papers, which were called her “seals,” to her followers, which were to protect them from all evil of this life and the next. In 1814, having fallen from indulgence and want of exercise into a habit of body which gave her the appearance of pregnancy, she announced herself the mother of the approaching Shiloh. She died, however, and her body was opened, revealing the real cause of her appearance; but her death and burial did not undeceive her followers, though no resurrection of their leader has yet taken place.

SPANDRIL. The triangular portion of wall between two arches, or an arch and the adjoining wall; or between the side of an arch and the square panel in which it is set. The latter is a remarkable feature in perpendicular doorways, being often richly ornamented with figures, foliage, or heraldic shields.

SPIRE. The high pyramidal capping or roof of a tower. The earliest spires still existing in England are Early English; and in this style, as well as in the next, or Geometric, it is generally of the form called a broach. In the Decorated, the broach and the parapetted spire occur indifferently; in the Perpendicular, the latter almost exclusively, though there is a large portion of Leicestershire and Northamptonshire in which Perpendicular broaches are not uncommon. Many of our loftiest spires were formerly of timber, covered with lead: such was the spire of St. Paul’s cathedral, the highest in the kingdom; such is still the remarkable twisted spire of Chesterfield. Several smaller spires of this kind remain in the southern counties, but the perishableness of the material has led to the destruction of by far the greater number of them.

SPLAY. The slanting expansion inwards of windows, for the wider diffusion of light. This is usually very great in Norman windows, where the external aperture is small.

SPONSORS. In the administration of baptism, these have from time immemorial held a distinguished and important place. Various titles have been given them significative of the position they hold, and the duties to which they are pledged. Thus they are called _sponsors_, because in infant baptism they _respond_ or answer for the baptized. They are _sureties_, in virtue of the security given through them to the Church, that the baptized shall be “virtuously brought up to lead a godly and a Christian life.” And from the spiritual affinity here created, by which a responsibility almost parental is undertaken by the sureties, in the future training of the baptized, the terms _godfather and godmother_ have taken their rise.

(For the rubrics and canons on this subject see _Godfather_.)

In the ancient Church they reckoned three sorts of sponsors: 1. For children, who could not renounce, or profess, or answer for themselves. 2. For such adult persons, as by reason of sickness or infirmity were in the same condition as children, incapable of answering for themselves. 3. For all adult persons in general.

The sponsors for children were obliged to answer to all the interrogatories usually made in baptism, and then to be the guardians of their Christian education. In most cases, parents were sponsors for their own children; and the extraordinary cases in which they were presented by others were such, where the parent could not or would not perform that kind office for them; as when slaves were presented for baptism by their masters; or children, whose parents were dead, were brought by any charitable persons, who would take pity on them; or children exposed by their parents, who were sometimes taken up by the holy virgins of the Church, and by them presented unto baptism. In these cases, where strangers became sureties for children, they were not obliged, by virtue of their suretyship, to maintain them; but the Church was charged with this care, and they were supported out of the common stock. All that was required of such sponsors was, first, to answer to the several interrogatories in baptism; and, secondly, to take care, by good admonitions and instructions, that they performed their part of the covenant they engaged in.

The second sort of sponsors were to answer for such adult persons as were incapable of answering for themselves. These were such as were suddenly struck speechless, or seized with a frenzy through the violence of some distemper, and the like. And they might be baptized, if their friends could testify that they had beforehand desired baptism. In which case the same friends became sponsors for them, making the very same answers for them that they did for children.

The third sort of sponsors were for such adult persons as were able to answer for themselves; for these also had their sureties, and no persons anciently were baptized without them. It was no part of the office of these sponsors to answer to the interrogatories made in baptism: the adult persons were to answer for themselves, according to that plain sentence of the gospel, “He is of age, let him answer for himself.” The only business of sponsors, in this case, was to be guardians of their spiritual life, and to take care of their instruction and morals, both before and after baptism. This office was chiefly imposed upon the deacons for the men, and the deaconesses for the women.

Anciently, there was no prohibition of any sorts of men from performing this charitable office; excepting only catechumens, energumens, heretics, and penitents; that is, persons who as yet were never in full communion with the Church, or such as had forfeited the privileges of baptism and Church communion by their crimes or errors; such persons being deemed incapable of assisting others, who stood in need of assistance themselves. In the time of Charles the Great, the Council of Mentz forbade fathers to be sponsors for their own children: and this was the first prohibition of this sort.

It is observable, that anciently no more than one sponsor was required, namely, a man for a man, and a woman for a woman. In the case of infants, no regard was had to the difference of sex: for a virgin might be sponsor for a male child, and a father for his children, whether male or female. This practice was confirmed by the Council of Mentz, upon a reason which is something peculiar: for they concluded, that, because there is but one GOD, one faith, and one baptism, therefore an infant ought to have but one sponsor.—_Bingham._

SQUINCH. More properly _Pendentive_. A small arch thrown across the angle of a square tower, to receive one of the sides of an octagonal spire or lantern. In broach spires the external slant over this arch is also called a squinch.

STALLS. In a cathedral or collegiate church, and often in parish churches, certain seats constructed for the clergy and other members of the Church, and intended for their exclusive use. These stalls are placed in that portion of the building called the _choir_, or the part in which Divine service is usually performed.

In ancient times, all members of the cathedral, including lay clerks or vicars, had their stalls: though the inferior members had not always fixed stalls appropriated to each individual. Unless when the community was very small, there was an upper and lower range of stalls, called the _prima et secunda forma_, (or gradus,) the upper appropriated to the canons or prebendaries, (and sometimes the priest vicars or minor canons,) the lower to the other members. The designation of the respective dignitaries and canons were written on their stalls; in some few instances, those of the minor canons or priest vicars also. The destruction of the ancient stalls, as at Canterbury, and of the lower range of stalls, as in many places, is a barbarism much to be lamented.

The same word is also used to signify any benefice, which gives the person holding it a seat, or stall, with the chapter, in a cathedral or collegiate church.

STANDING. The posture enjoined by the Church at several parts of Divine service, as, for instance, at the exhortation with which the service of morning and evening commences, and at the ecclesiastical hymns. In the primitive Church the sermon was listened to standing; and in some churches the people stood praying on the LORD’S day, and during the fifty days after Easter, because it was not then so fitting to look downwards to the earth, as upwards to their risen and ascended Lord.

STATIONS. The weekly fasts of Wednesday and Friday. Not long after Justin Martyr’s time, the Church observed the custom of meeting solemnly for Divine worship on Wednesdays and Fridays, which days are commonly called the _stationary days_, because they continued their assemblies on those days to a great length, till three o’clock in the afternoon: for which reason they had also the name of _semi-jejunia_, or half fasts, in opposition to the Lent fasts, which always held till evening.—_Bingham._ _Station_, in the Romish Church, denotes certain churches in which indulgences are granted on certain days. It is also a ceremony wherein the clergy go out of the choir and sing before an image.

STEEPLE. The tower of a church with all its appendages, as turret, octagon, and spire. It is often incorrectly confounded with the spire.

STEPHEN’S, ST., DAY. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on the 26th of December, in honour of the protomartyr, St. Stephen.

STIPENDIARIES. Members of collegiate choirs, who do not possess an independent estate, but are paid stipends. At Christ Church in Dublin there are both vicars choral and stipendiaries, the latter generally succeeding to vacant vicarages. There were also formerly five stipendiaries at Tuam; and four at the now ruined cathedral of Enachdune.—_Harris’s Ware. Cotton’s Facti Eccl. Hib._

STOLE, or ORARIUM. A long and narrow scarf with fringed extremities, that crossed the breast to the girdle, and thence descended in front on both sides as low as the knees. The deacon wore it over the left shoulder, and in the Latin Church joined under the right arm, but in the Greek Church with its two extremities, one in front and the other hanging down his back. The word ἄγιος was sometimes thrice embroidered on it instead of crosses. It is one of the most ancient vestments used by the Christian clergy, and in its mystical signification represented the yoke of CHRIST.—_Palmer._

STOUP. A bason to receive holy water, often remaining in porches, or in some other place near the entrance of the church, and towards the right hand of a person entering.

SUBCHANTER. (See _Succentor_.)

SUBDEACONS. An inferior order of clergy in the Christian Church, so called from their being employed in subordination to the deacons.

The first notice we have of this order in any writers, is about the middle of the third century, when Cyprian lived, who speaks of subdeacons as settled in the Church in his time. The author of the “Constitutions” refers them to an apostolical institution, and brings in St. Thomas the apostle, giving directions to bishops for their ordination. But in this he is singular, it being the general opinion that subdeacons are merely of ecclesiastical institution.

As to their office, it was to fit and prepare the sacred vessels and utensils of the altar, and deliver them to the deacons in the time of Divine service; but they were not allowed to minister as deacons at the altar; no, not so much as to come within the rails of it, to set a paten or cup, or the oblations of the people, thereon. Another of their offices was, to attend the doors of the church during the Communion Service. Besides which offices in the church, they had another out of the church, which was, to carry the bishop’s letters or messages to foreign Churches. As to their ordination, it was performed without imposition of hands; and the ceremony consisted in their receiving an empty paten and cup from the hands of the bishop, and an ewer and towel from the archdeacon.

The singularity of the Church of Rome was remarkable in keeping to the exact number of seven subdeacons; whereas in other Churches the number was indefinite.

The employment of the subdeacons in the Romish Church is, to take care of the holy vessels, to prepare and pour water upon the wine in the chalice, to sing the Epistle at solemn masses, to bring and hold the book of the Gospels to the deacon, to give it the priest to kiss, to carry the cross in processions, and to receive the oblations of the people. The bishop, when he confers the order of subdeacon, causes the candidate to lay his hands on a cup and paten, both empty, saying to him at the same time, “Videte cujus ministerium vobis traditur,” &c. “Take care of the ministry which is committed to your charge, and present yourself unto GOD in such a manner as may be agreeable to him.” After which, the candidate lays his hand on the Epistles, and the bishop says, “Receive this book, and the power of reading the Epistles in the holy Church of GOD.” The person to be ordained must present himself clothed in a white albe, and holding a lighted taper in his right hand. After the litanies, &c., the bishop clothes him with the amict, saying, “Accipe amictum, per quem designatur castigatio vocis,” that is, “Receive the amict, which denotes the bridle of speech.” He then puts the maniple on his left arm, telling him that it signifies the fruit of good works; and clothes him with the dalmatica, letting him know that it is the garment of joy.

The office of subdeacon does not subsist in the Church of England. It is, however, mentioned in the statutes of Henry the Eighth’s foundations, and is considered to be identical with _Epistoler_. The four subdeacons at Hereford are lay clerks.—_Bingham._

SUBDEAN. An officer in cathedrals, who assists the dean in maintaining the discipline of the Church. In some cathedrals of the old foundation he was a permanent dignitary: in others, a minor canon or vicar choral, and then his jurisdiction was merely over the inferior members. (See _Vice Dean_.)

SUBINTRODUCTÆ. (See _Agapetæ_.)

SUBLAPSARIANS. Those who hold that GOD permitted the first man to fall into transgression without absolutely predetermining his fall; or that the decree of predestination regards man as fallen, by an abuse of that freedom which Adam had, into a state in which all were to be left to necessary and unavoidable ruin, who were not exempted from it by predestination. (See _Supralapsarians_.)

SUBSTANCE. In relation to the GODHEAD, that which forms the Divine essence or being—that in which the Divine attributes inhere. In the language of the Church, and agreeably with holy writ, CHRIST is said to be of the same _substance_ with the FATHER, being _begotten_, and therefore partaking of the Divine essence; not _made_, as was the opinion of some of the early heretics. (See _Homoousion_, _Person_, and _Trinity_.)

SUCCENTOR. The precentor’s deputy in cathedral churches. Sometimes this officer was a dignitary, as at York still and formerly at Glasgow, Aberdeen, Paris, &c.; and at York he is called _Succentor Canonicorum_, to distinguish him from the other subchanter, who is a vicar choral. In most churches however the subchanter is a vicar or minor canon, as at St. Paul’s, Hereford, Lichfield, St. Patrick’s, &c.

SUCCESSION, APOSTOLICAL, or UNINTERRUPTED. (See _Apostolical Succession_.) The doctrine of a regular and continued transmission of ministerial authority, in the succession of bishops, from the apostles to any subsequent period. To understand this, it is necessary to premise, that the powers of the ministry can only come from one source—the great HEAD of the Church. By his immediate act the apostles or first bishops were constituted, and they were empowered to send others, as he had sent them. Here then was created the first link of a chain which was destined to reach from CHRIST’S ascension to his second coming to judge the world. And as the ordaining power was confined exclusively to the apostles, (see _Episcopacy_,) no other men or ministers could possibly exercise it: from them alone was to be obtained the authority to feed and govern the Church of all future ages. By the labours of the apostles, the Church rapidly spread through the then known world, and with this there grew up a demand for an increase of pastors. Accordingly, the apostles ordained elders or presbyters in all churches; but the powers given to these terminated in themselves; they could not communicate them to others. A few therefore were consecrated to the same rank held by the apostles themselves, and to these the full authority of the Christian ministry was committed, qualifying them to ordain deacons and presbyters, and, when necessary, to impart their full commission to others. Here was the second link of the chain. For example: Paul and the other apostolic bishops were the first. Timothy, Titus, and others, who succeeded to the same ministerial powers, formed the second. A third series of bishops were in like manner ordained by the second, as time advanced, and a fourth series by the third. And here the reader will perceive what is meant by _uninterrupted succession_, viz. a perfect and unbroken transmission of the original ministerial commission from the apostles to their successors, by the progressive and perpetual conveyance of their powers from one race of bishops to another. The process thus established was faithfully carried on in every branch of the universal Church. And as the validity of the ministry depended altogether on the legitimacy of its derivation from the apostles, infinite care was taken in the consecration of bishops, to see that the ecclesiastical pedigree of their consecrators was regular and indisputable. In case that any man broke in upon the apostolical succession, by “climbing up some other way,” he was instantly deposed. A great part of the ancient canons were made for regulating ordinations, especially those of bishops, by providing that none should be ordained, except in extraordinary cases, by less than three bishops of the same province; that strange bishops should not be admitted to join with those of the province on such occasions, but those only who were neighbours and well known, and the validity of whose orders was not disputed. The care thus taken in the early ages to preserve inviolate the succession from the apostles, has been maintained in all Churches down to the present day. There are in existence, catalogues of bishops from our own time back to the day of Pentecost. These catalogues are proofs of the importance always attached by the Church to a regular genealogy in her bishops. And they, as well as the living bishops themselves, are proofs of the reality of an apostolical succession. It has been well remarked, that CHRIST JESUS has taken more abundant care to ascertain the succession of pastors in his Church, than ever was taken in relation to the Aaronical priesthood. For, in this case, the succession is transmitted from seniors to juniors, by the most public and solemn action, or rather series of actions, that is ever performed in a Christian Church; an action done in the face of the sun, and attested by great numbers of the most authentic witnesses, as consecrations always were. And we presume it cannot bear any dispute, but that it is now more easily to be proved that the archbishop of Canterbury was canonically ordained, than that any person now living is the son of him who is called his father; and that the same might have been said of any archbishop or bishop that ever sat in that or any other episcopal see, during the time of his being bishop.

Such then is uninterrupted succession; a fact to which every bishop, priest, and deacon, in the wide world, looks as the ground of validity in his orders. Without this, all distinction between a clergyman and a layman is utterly vain, for no security exists that heaven will ratify the acts of an illegally constituted minister on earth. Without it, ordination confers none but humanly derived powers.

The following acute observation occurs in Morgan’s “Verities:”

The succession of Canterbury from Augustine, A. D. 597, to Tillotson, 1691, includes seventy-nine archbishops, giving each an average reign of less than fourteen years. The view in which some persons, opposed to the indispensability of the apostolic succession, try to place it—as a single chain of single links, from some one single apostle, of which one link, wanting or broken, breaks the succession—if very contrary to the facts to be illustrated, is yet very original. Grant each apostle to have founded twenty churches, here are at least, _ab origine_, two hundred and forty successions apostolically commenced. Considering how these have reproduced themselves a thousand-fold, and that each episcopal link succeeded the last as publicly as kings their predecessors, the “one chain” is not a very fortunate comparison.

SUFFRAGANS. The word properly signifies all the provincial bishops who are under a metropolitan, and they are called his suffragans, because he has power to call them to his provincial synods to give their _suffrages_ there.

The name is also used to denote a class resembling the _chorepiscopi_, or country bishops, of the ancient Church. (See _Chorepiscopus_.)

In the very beginning of the Reformation here, viz. an. 26 Henry VIII.