comprehends the transactions under the government of Eli and Samuel, and
under Saul the first king; as also the acts of David whilst he lived
under Saul; and is supposed to include the space of about 101 years.
Here we read, how the republic of Israel was changed into a monarchy,
and what great evils they suffered in consequence thereof. We have here
an account of the deposition of their first king, Saul, on account of
his profane sacrificing, and his wilful disobedience to the commands of
GOD, in relation to the destruction of the Amalekites; his treachery to
David, and cruel pursuits of him; and, lastly, the tragical death of
himself, and his son Jonathan, on Mount Gilboa.
The Second Book of Samuel, otherwise called the Second Book of Kings,
contains the history of about forty years, and is wholly spent in
relating the transactions of King David’s reign; the military exploits
of that prince, and his administration both of the Church and of the
State. With these are mixed the great failings and miscarriages of
David, and, in consequence thereof, the many distresses he met with, and
the various judgments and plagues inflicted upon him and his people by
GOD.
SANCTE BELL. A small bell which was rung when the “_Sanctus, Sanctus,
Sanctus Dominus, Deus Sabaoth_” was said, to prepare the people for the
elevation of the host.
Mr. Todd, in his additions to Johnson’s Dictionary, quotes from Warton’s
History of Kiddington, as follows: “It was usually placed where it might
be heard farthest, in a lantern at the springing of the steeple, or in a
turret at the angle of the tower; and sometimes, for the convenience of
its being more readily and exactly rung, within a pediment, or arcade,
between the church and the chancel; the rope, in this situation, falling
down into the choir, not far from the altar.” Thus in Walton’s Life of
George Herbert: “And some of the meaner sort of his parish did so love
and reverence Mr. Herbert, that they would let their plough rest when
Mr. Herbert’s _Saints’ bell_ rung to prayers, that they might also offer
their devotions to God with him; and would then return back to their
plough.” The small bell at Canterbury rung before service, is hung high
in the central tower, and seems to answer to the ancient Saints’ bell.
Mr. Todd adds, that “the little bell, which now rings immediately before
the service begins, is corruptly called, in many places, _Saucebell_, or
_Sauncebell_.”
SANCTIFICATION. (See _Justification_.) The progressive conformity of the
heart and life to the will of GOD, or our inherent righteousness, as
distinguished from the righteousness of justification. To say that we
detract from the necessity of inherent righteousness, or what is called
the righteousness of sanctification, because we exclude it from the
office of justification, and thus demolish the whole fabric of human
merit, is about as reasonable as to say, that because we receive food by
the mouth, and not by the ear or the eye, the eye and the ear are
unnecessary members in the human frame, and that no other bodily
functions are requisite to the life of man. The man will die if, by
tetanus, he is unable to open his mouth; but he will also die if, having
received food into his mouth, he is unable to digest it; and yet the
digestion of food, and its mastication, are processes entirely distinct,
while the food itself is a gift from without. It is one thing to assert
that a Christian must have inherent righteousness, and another to assert
that his inherent righteousness is the ground of his acceptance with a
righteous GOD.
We may refer to Hooker for a clear exposition of the case: “Concerning
the righteousness of sanctification, we deny it not to be inherent; we
grant that, unless we work, we have it not; only we distinguish it as a
thing different in nature from the righteousness of justification: we
are righteous the one way, by the _faith_ of Abraham; the other way,
except we do the _works_ of Abraham, we are _not_ righteous. Of the one,
St. Paul, ‘To him that worketh not, but believeth, faith is counted for
righteousness.’ Of the other, St. John, ‘He is righteous which worketh
righteousness.’ Of the one, St. Paul doth prove by Abraham’s example,
that we have it of faith without works. Of the other, St. James, by
Abraham’s example, that by works we have it, and not only by faith.
“St. Paul doth plainly sever these two parts of Christian righteousness
one from the other. For in the sixth to the Romans thus he writeth:
_Being freed from sin, and made servants to God, ye have your fruit in
holiness, and the end everlasting life._
“‘Ye are made free from sin, and made servants unto GOD;’ this is the
righteousness of justification.
“‘Ye have your fruit in holiness;’ this is the righteousness of
sanctification.
“By the one we are interested in the right of inheriting; by the other
we are brought to the actual possession of eternal bliss; and so the end
of both is everlasting life.”
In another passage of the same discourse Hooker says: “It is a childish
cavil wherewith, in the matter of justification, our adversaries do so
greatly please themselves, exclaiming, that we tread all Christian
virtues under our feet, and require nothing in Christians but faith;
because we teach that faith alone justifieth: whereas, by this speech,
we never meant to exclude either hope or charity from being always
joined as inseparable mates with faith in the man that is justified; or
works from being added as necessary duties, required at the hands of
every justified man: but to show that faith is the only hand which
putteth on CHRIST unto justification; and CHRIST the only garment,
which, being so put on, covereth the shame of our defiled natures,
hideth the imperfection of our works, preserveth us blameless in the
sight of GOD, before whom otherwise the weakness of our faith were cause
sufficient to make us culpable, yea, to shut us from the kingdom of
heaven, where nothing that is not absolute can enter.”
“It is not the question,” says Bishop Andrewes, “whether we have an
inherent righteousness or no, or whether GOD will accept or reward it;
but whether that must be our righteousness _coram rege justo judicium
faciente_, which is a point very material, and by no means to be
forgotten; for, without this, if we compare ourselves with ourselves,
what heretofore we have been, or if we compare ourselves with others, as
did the Pharisees, we may take a fancy, perhaps, and have some good
conceit of our inherent righteousness. Yea, if we be to deal in schools
by argument or disputation, we may, peradventure, argue for it, and make
some show in the matter. But let us once be brought and arraigned _coram
rege justo sedente in solio_, let us set ourselves there, we shall then
see that all our former conceit shall vanish straight, and righteousness
in that sense (that is, an inherent righteousness) will not abide the
trial.”
“The Homilies of our Church,” as Dr. Waterland, adopting their doctrine,
observes, “describe and limit the doctrine thus: ‘Faith doth not shut
out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of GOD, to be joined
with faith in every man that is justified: but it shutteth them out from
the office of justifying;’ that is to say, from the office of accepting
or receiving it; for as to the office of justifying in the active sense,
that belongs to GOD only, as the same homily elsewhere declares. The
doctrine is there further explained thus: ‘Because faith doth directly
send us to CHRIST for remission of our sins, and that, by faith given us
of GOD, we embrace the promise of GOD’S mercy, and of the remission of
our sins, (which thing none other of our virtues or works properly
doth,) therefore the Scripture useth to say, that faith without works
doth justify.’”
It is observed by Faber “that, in the progress of a Christian man from
his original justification to his final salvation, these several states
or conditions of righteousness successively appertain to him.
“First in order comes the forensic righteousness of justification; a
righteousness reputatively his, through faith, and on account of the
perfect meritoriousness of CHRIST.
“Next in order comes the inherent righteousness of sanctification; a
righteousness infused into him by the HOLY SPIRIT after he has been
justified.
“And last in order comes the complete righteousness of glorification; a
righteousness acquired by him, when this corruptible puts on
incorruption, and this mortal puts on immortality.
“The first righteousness, being the righteousness of CHRIST, is perfect,
but not inherent.
“The second righteousness, being the subsequently infused righteousness
of a _justified_ Christian man, is inherent, but not perfect.
“The third righteousness, being the acquired righteousness of a
_departed_ Christian man in his glorified state hereafter, is both
perfect and inherent.”
SANCTIFY. (See _Sanctification_.) To make holy, to treat as holy, or to
set apart for holy services. (Exod. xix. 10, 22, 23; xxx. 29; Deut. v.
13; Isa. viii. 13; xxix. 23; Eph. v. 26; 1 Thess. v. 23.)
SANCTUARY. The holy of holies (Lev. iv. 6); the temple at large (2
Chron. xx. 8); the one place of national worship for the Israelites
(Deut. xii. 5); also the place within the Septurn, or rails, where the
altar stands in the Christian church.
By sanctuary is also meant the privilege of criminals who have fled to
certain sacred places, to have their freedom from arrest and punishment,
except ecclesiastical discipline, so long as they remain therein. This
custom of sanctuary, which is now almost everywhere done away with, for
the abuse to which it gave rise, was derived from the Levitical law of
refuge, by which, at GOD’S express appointment, six cities were made
cities of refuge for the involuntary manslayer: and the altar of
burnt-offerings was also a place of refuge for persons who had
undesignedly committed smaller offences. (Deut. xix. 11, 12; Joshua xx.)
In this Divine law the object seems to have been to mark GOD’S hatred of
sin, by showing that even accidental and unpremeditated offences were
forgiven only by an especial exercise of his mercy. The corrupt custom
of sanctuary in the middle ages was extended to the protection of those
who knowingly and willingly committed the most heinous offences. (See
_Asylum_.)
SANCTUS. (See _Tersanctus_.)
SANDEMANIANS, or GLASSITES. A dissenting community, which had its origin
in the preaching and deposition of one John Glas, presbyterian minister
of the parish of Tealing, near Dundee, in 1730. His pupil, Robert
Sandeman, brought his doctrine into England, and also into America, and
from him the sect derives its name, though in Scotland it is still
designated after its first founder. The Sandemanians are not a numerous
sect.
The following is the account of the Sandemanians in the
Registrar-general’s Return.
“The Sandemanians—sometimes called Glassites, both appellations being
derived from the names of the founders of the sect—first came into
notice in Scotland about 1728 or 1729; when Mr. Glass, a minister of the
Scottish National Church, avowed opinions on Church government
approaching very nearly those maintained by Congregationalists. Robert
Sandeman appeared in advocacy of the same opinions about 1757, and
formed a congregation in London in 1762.
“The prominent doctrine of the Sandemanians, on which they differ from
most other Churches, relates to the nature of justifying faith, which
Sandeman maintained to be ‘no more than a simple _assent_ to the Divine
testimony, passively received by the understanding.’
“Sandemanians, also, observe certain peculiar practices, supposed by
them to have been prevalent amongst the primitive Christians, such as
weekly sacraments, love feasts, mutual exhortation, washing each other’s
feet, plurality of elders, the use of the lot, &c.
“The number of Sandemanian congregations in England reported by the
Census officers was six; the number of sittings (after an estimate for
two chapels where the information was not given) was 956; and the number
of attendants on the Census Sunday was: _Morning_, 439; _Afternoon_,
256; _Evening_, 61.
SANHEDRIM, or SENATE. A corrupted word, from the Greek, συνέδριον. (See
St. Mark xiv. 55; xv. 1; St. Luke xxii. 66, where mention is made of the
_Synedrion_: St. John xi. 47; Acts iv. 15.) The origin of the Sanhedrim
is not without obscurity; for the council of the seventy elders
established by Moses was not what the Hebrews understood by the name of
Sanhedrim. Nor can we perceive this establishment under Joshua, the
Judges, or the Kings. We find nothing of it after the captivity till the
time of Judas Maccabeus. The tribunals established by Gabinius were very
different from the Sanhedrim. This was the only court of its kind, and
fixed at Jerusalem; whereas, Gabinius established five tribunals at five
different cities, which tribunals do not appear to have been subordinate
one to another. Lastly, it is certain that this senate was in being in
time of JESUS CHRIST. (Vide supra.) But the Jews inform us themselves,
that they then had not the power of life and death. (St. John xviii.
31.)—_Calmet, ed. Taylor._ The chief council of the Jewish nation,
composed of seventy or seventy-two judges, and said to have taken its
rise from the seventy elders appointed to assist Moses.
SARUM. (See _Use_.)
SATAN. A Hebrew word, שטן, signifying _an adversary_, _an enemy_, _an
accuser_. It is often translated adversary in our translation of the
Bible, as also in the Septuagint and Vulgate. For example, (1 Sam. xxix.
4,) the princes of the Philistines say to Achish, “Send back David, lest
in the battle he be an adversary to us, and turn his arm against us.”
The LORD stirred up adversaries to Solomon in the persons of Hadad and
Rezon. (1 Kings xi. 14, 23, &c.) Sometimes Satan is put for the Devil;
for example, Satan presented himself among the sons of GOD, and the LORD
said unto Satan, “Whence comest thou?” (Job i. 6, 7, &c.) And in Psalm
cix. 6, it is said, “Let Satan stand at his right hand;” and in Zech.
iii. 1, 2, it is said, “Satan standing at his right hand; and the LORD
said unto Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan.’” In the books of the
New Testament, the word Satan is taken both in the sense of an
adversary, and also for the Devil; for example, CHRIST says to Peter,
(Matt. xvi. 23,) “Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto
me;” that is, Begone, O mine adversary, you that withstand what I most
desire, and what I came into the world about. But most commonly Satan is
taken for the Devil. (Matt. xii. 26; Mark iii. 23.) “If Satan cast out
Satan, he is divided against himself.” And in the Revelation, (xx. 2,)
“He laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil and
Satan, and bound him a thousand years.” (See the article _Devil_.)
SATAN, KINGDOM OF. In the Gospel, (Matt. xii. 26; Mark iii. 23, and Luke
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.