With respect to the Old Testament, the books we have inherited from the

Jews were always regarded by them as authentic and inspired. And our

blessed LORD and his apostles were so far from accusing the Jews of

superstition, in the regard which they paid to the writings of the Old

Testament, or from charging the scribes and Pharisees (whom CHRIST, on

all proper occasions, censured so freely) with having introduced into

the sacred volume mere human compositions, that, on the contrary, they

not only recommend the diligent and constant perusal of them, as of the

greatest importance to men’s eternal happiness, but speak of them as

Divine oracles, and as written by an extraordinary influence of the

DIVINE SPIRIT upon the minds of the authors. (Vide John v. 39; x. 35;

Mark xii. 24; Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10; v. 17, 18; xxi. 42; xxii. 29, 31, 43;

xxiv. 15; xxvi. 54, 56; Luke i. 67, 69, 70; x. 26, 27; xvi. 31; Acts iv.

25; xvii. 11; xviii. 24–28; Rom. iii. 2; xv. 4; xvi. 26; Gal. iii. 8; 1

Tim. v. 17, 18; 2 Tim. iii. 14–17; James ii. 8; iv. 5; 1 Pet. i. 10–12;

2 Pet. i. 19–21.) To this list may be added many other places,—on the

whole, more than five hundred,—in which the sacred writers of the New

Testament quote and argue from those of the Old, in such a manner as

they would surely not have done, if they had apprehended there were room

to allege that it contained at least a mixture of what was spurious and

of no authority.—_Lowth on Inspiration. Tillotson’s Sermons. Doddridge’s

Lectures._

The argument of the Divine inspiration of Scripture as an induction from

its adaptation to the nature of man—even as regards those parts of the

Old Testament which have been most obnoxious to cavil—is ably maintained

in the Bampton Lectures of 1817, preached by the Rev. John Miller, from

which the following is extracted:—“Although Scripture presents the most

humiliating portraiture of human nature, and that intentionally, to lead

man into a knowledge of himself, as the subject of its operation; it

should be added that the Bible does not exhibit an _unmixed_ image of

evil, inasmuch as, if it did, it would not be that exact resemblance of

the character of man, which it is now affirmed to be. Nor do I, in

subjoining this qualification, feel a consciousness either of having

carried the main proposition unreasonably far, to countenance a partial

construction, or of now adding any such inconsistent exception as may

neutralize or destroy its force.

“The representation of evil was intended, and is necessary, for the

analysis of doctrine. We hold the opinion, that a man is a being, ‘very

far gone from an original righteousness,’ in which he was created. And

it is maintained that the whole substance of Scripture so fully

justifies this doctrine as to be quite inexplicable, and therefore, as a

record of Divine wisdom, inadmissible, without it.

“It is, however, contended also, that _with_ this doctrine, found to be

involved in the substance of its histories, and harmonizing with the end

of its great provisions, Scripture commends itself, in a peculiar

manner, to our belief and acceptation, as a record which, while it

extends to the very root of our disease, and so alone points out the

true method of recovery from it, falls in thereby with the observations

of our own personal experience.

“But such involvement of a general truth by no means necessarily fixes

or defines the measure or degree of sin in individuals acting in various

stages of moral responsibility, and subject to the influences, not only

of rational motives, but (as would seem, more or less even from the

beginning) to those of an infused grace! And it may confidently be

maintained, that the two several propositions now affirmed of Holy Writ,

viz. that it gives a most humiliating view of man, and yet not one of

unmixed evil, are not only not inconsistent, but explanatory one of the

other. The one is specially profitable for ‘doctrine,’ the other for

‘instruction in righteousness.’ For Scripture not to have discovered a

full and intimate acquaintance with the extent and quality of evil

itself, would have substracted from our sure persuasion of its perfect

insight into truth. Upon the other hand, to have displayed the operation

of that evil otherwise than as it is seen practically existing in its

effects, would not have been to give that real likeness of ourselves,

which we have a claim to look for in a record offering itself to be our

faithful guide. Hence, in the first case, without the darker lineaments

of the Bible, how could we rightly have arrived at that true _doctrinal_

statement, which now affirms the general existence of an extreme

unsoundness in the constitution of human nature, if that which is in man

can only be developed adequately, or inferred correctly, through

scrutiny of the worst deeds which man has done? How, in the second—while

we consent entirely to the truth of this broad abstract statement of the

_nature_ of man—could we consent with willing minds to take our sole or

only chief instruction in the ways of righteousness, from guidance which

should represent us all as being just alike, at any or at every moment

of our lives, when we are certain that the practical appearances of evil

show very many gradations, and put on very different aspects, in the

condition of different individuals? * * * If Scripture does indeed thus

show us to ourselves, and we cannot deny the truth of the resemblance;

if it neither conceals deformity to tempt us, nor yet drives us into

extremity, so as to overwhelm us; if it neither threatens nor promises

too much, could it have proceeded either from one that did not know us,

or from one that did not love us?”

SEALED BOOKS. By the Act 13 & 14 Car. II. (which ratified the last

revision of the Prayer Book,) c. 4, sect. 28, it was enacted that the

dean and chapter of every cathedral and collegiate church, should obtain

under the great seal of England a true and perfect printed copy of the

above-mentioned Act and Prayer Book, to be kept by them in safety for

ever, and to be produced in any court of record when required; and that

like copies should be delivered into the respective courts of

Westminster, and the Tower of London: which books so to be exemplified

under the great seal, were to be examined by persons appointed by the

king, and compared with the original book annexed to the Act: these

persons having power to correct and amend in writing any error;

certifying the examination and collation under their hands and seals:

“which said books, and every one of them, shall be taken, adjudged, and

expounded to be good, and available in the law to all intents and

purposes whatsoever, and shall be accounted as good records as this book

itself heretofore annexed,” &c.

Mr. Stephens, in his late edition of the Common Prayer Book, with notes,

has given a fac-simile text of the original black letter Prayer Books,

published after the last Review, with all the corrections of the

commissioners carefully marked. The sealed books which he collated for

this purpose, are those for the Chancery, Queen’s Bench, Common Pleas,

Exchequer, St. Paul’s, Christ Church Oxford, Ely, and the Tower of

London.

SECONDARIES. A general name for the inferior members of cathedrals, as

vicars choral, &c.: the _clerici secundæ formæ_, that is, of the second

or lower range of stalls, called the _bas chœur_ in France. The priest

vicars and minor canons were sometimes included in the superior form.

Some of the lay singers at Exeter are so called. Sometimes the term was

applied to the assistant priest in course, even though not of the second

form. At Hereford the second vicar who assists in chanting the Litany is

the “_secondary_.”

SECT. (From _seco_, Lat., to cut; being analogous to the word _schism_,

derived from the Greek σχίζω, which has the same meaning.) A religious

community following some particular master, instead of adhering to the

teaching of the Catholic Church. Thus Calvinists are the sect following

Calvin; Wesleyans the sect following Wesley. We are to remember that we

are expressly forbidden in Scripture thus to call any man master: one is

our master, JESUS CHRIST, the righteous.

SECULAR CLERGY. In those Churches in which there are monasteries, the

clergy attached to those monasteries are called _Regulars_, the other

clergy are styled _Seculars_. In our Church, before the Reformation, the

number of Regulars was very great; but, since the Reformation, we have

only had Secular clergy. The canons of such cathedrals of the old

foundation as were not monastic, were called Secular.

SEDILIA. Seats near an altar, almost universally on the south side, for

the ministers officiating at the holy eucharist. They are generally

three in number, for the celebrant, epistoler, and gospeller, but vary

from one to five.

SEE. (Latin, _sedes_.) The seat of episcopal dignity and jurisdiction

where the bishop has his throne, or _cathedra_.

SELAH. An untranslated Hebrew word, recurring several times in the

Psalms, and in Habakkuk iii., on the meaning of which there are many

opinions. It is most probably a direction to raise the voice, or make

some change in the instrumental performance at certain passages, and is

merely a musical notation, connected however, as all proper musical

expression must be, with the sense.

SEMI-ARIANS. The Arian sect was divided into two principal parties: the

one of which adhering more closely to the opinion of their master,

maintained that the SON of GOD was unlike the FATHER, Ἀνόμοιας, and of

this party was Eunomius: the other party refused to receive the word

consubstantial, yet acknowledged the SON of GOD Ὁμοιούσιος, of a like

substance or essence with the FATHER, and therefore were called

Semi-Arians, that is, half Arians; this party made the majority in the

Councils of Rimini and Seleucia.

SEMI-PELAGIANS, or MASSILIENSES. A sect of heretics, who endeavoured to

find a medium betwixt the Pelagians and the orthodox; they had their

origin about 430 in France, (hence the name _Massiliens_, from Massilia,

now Marseilles). Their principal favourers were Cassianus, a disciple of

Chrysostom; Faustus, abbot of Lirinum; Vincentius, a Gallic writer, whom

St. Prosper answered, &c. Their agreement with the Pelagians was in the

power of free-will, at least as to the beginning of faith and

conversion, and to the co-operation of GOD and man, grace and nature, as

to predestination, from foreknowledge and universal grace, and the

possibility of the apostasy of the saints. Some of them also would

modify those opinions, and maintained only the predestination of infants

from a foreknowledge of the life they would lead. The great opposers of

this heresy were St. Augustine, Fulgentius, &c. The original of the

_predestinarian_ heresy in this age is denied by Jansenius and others,

as well as Protestants, and looked upon as a fiction of the

Semi-Pelagians.

SEMI-PREBENDARIES. (See _Demi-Prebendaries_.)

SEMINARIES, in Popish countries, are certain colleges, appointed for the

instruction and education of young persons, destined for the sacred

ministry. The first institution of such places is ascribed to St.

Augustine. And the Council of Trent decrees, that children, exceeding

twelve years of age, shall be brought up, and instructed in common, to

qualify them for the ecclesiastical state; and that there shall be a

seminary of such belonging to each cathedral, under the direction of the

bishop.

In the seminaries of France none are taken in but young persons, ready

to study theology, and to be ordained. And for the maintenance of these

seminaries certain benefices are allotted, or else the clergy of the

diocese are obliged to maintain them. These colleges are furnished with

halls for the public exercises, and little chambers or cells, where each

student retires, studies, and prays apart. Such is the seminary of St.

Sulpicius at Paris.

In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the Roman Catholics projected the

founding English seminaries abroad, that from thence they might be

furnished with missionaries to perpetuate and increase their communion.

Accordingly the college of Douay was founded in 1569, at the expense of

Philip II., king of Spain; and Dr. William Allen, an Englishman, was

made head of it. In the year 1579, a college was founded at Rome for the

same purpose, by Gregory XIII., who settled 4000 crowns _per annum_ for

the subsistence of the society. The famous Robert Parsons, an English

Jesuit, was rector of this college. King Philip founded another of these

nurseries at Valladolid in the year 1589, and one at Seville in 1593.

The same prince founded St. Omers in Artois, A. D. 1596. In the next

century more seminaries were established, at Madrid, Louvain, Liege, and

Ghent.

The two colleges of Douay and Rome received such great encouragement,

that some hundreds of priests were sent off from thence into England.

And to engage the members of these societies more firmly, they obliged

them, at their admission, to take the following oath: “I, A. B., one

bred in this English college, considering how great benefits GOD hath

bestowed upon me, but then especially when he brought me out of my own

country, so infected with heresy, and made me a member of the Catholic

Church; as also desiring with a thankful heart to improve so great a

mercy of GOD; have resolved to offer myself wholly up to Divine service,

as much as I may, to fulfil the end for which this our college was

founded. I promise, therefore, and swear, in the presence of Almighty

GOD, that I am prepared from mine heart, with the assistance of Divine

grace, in due time to receive holy orders, and to return to England, to

convert the souls of my countrymen and kindred, when, and as often as,

it shall seem good to the superior of this college.” As a further

encouragement, Pope Pius V. sent his brief to the students of these

colleges, for undertaking the mission into England. And that they might

act without clashing, and with the better harmony, he put them all under

the direction of Dr. Allen, afterwards Cardinal.

By a statute of Queen Elizabeth it is made a præmunire to contribute to

the maintenance of a Popish seminary. And by one of King James I., no

persons are to go, or be sent, to Popish seminaries, to be instructed or

educated, under divers penalties and disabilities mentioned in the

statute.

The houses of the society _De Propagandâ Fide_, established for the

preparing ecclesiastics for missionaries among infidels and heretics,

are also called seminaries. The principal of these is that at Rome,

called the Apostolic College or Seminary, or the seminary _De Propagandâ

Fide_.

SEPTUAGESIMA. The Sunday which in round numbers is 70 days before

Easter: hence the name. There being exactly 50 days between the Sunday

next before Lent and Easter day inclusive, that Sunday is termed

Quinquagesima, i. e. the 50th. And the two immediately preceding are

called from the next round numbers, Sexagesima and Septuagesima, 60th

and 70th. The Church thus early begins to look forward to Easter, the

queen of festivals. She would call back our minds from the rejoicing

season of Christmas, and, by reflections on the humiliating necessity

there was for MESSIAH’S advent, prepare us for that solemn season in

Lent; in which, if with deep contrition and lively faith we follow

CHRIST in his _sufferings_, we may rejoice with him here, and humbly

hope to reign with him hereafter in his _glory_. The observance of these

days and the weeks following, appears to be as ancient as the time of

Gregory the Great. Some of the more devout Christians observed the whole

time from the first of these Sundays to Easter, as a season of

humiliation and fasting, though the ordinary custom was to commence

fasting on Ash-Wednesday.

SEPTUAGINT. The Greek version of Scripture, which was received both by

the Jews and the primitive Christians. The first account which we have

of the origin of the Septuagint, is that which is given us by Aristeas.

It is to this effect. Ptolemy Philadelphus, by the advice of Demetrius

Phalereus, having determined to enrich his library at Alexandria with a

translation of the books of the Jewish law, sent Aristeas, his minister,

accompanied by Andrew, a person of celebrity, to Eleazar the high priest

of the Jews, that he might obtain both a copy of the original, and

persons duly qualified to render it into Greek. The request was complied

with. A copy of the Mosaic law written in golden letters was sent, with

seventy-two men, six from each tribe, to translate it. The translators,

persons skilled both in Hebrew and Greek, were honourably received by

the king of Egypt, and by him were sent to the isle of Pharos; and

there, in the space of seventy-two days, they completed their work,

mutually assisting each other, and dictating their translation to

Demetrius. This version was afterwards read in an assembly consisting of

Jewish priests and other learned men, and being stamped by their

approbation, was placed in the library of Alexandria.

This account, given us by Aristeas, is sometimes appended to the

editions of Josephus, and is also edited separately. It is worthy of

remark, that in this description nothing of the marvellous is

introduced, and it would clearly seem that the reference is to the

Pentateuch, and to that only.

Josephus, in the twelfth book, s. 1, of his “Antiquities,” for the most

part agrees with this account by Aristeas. But in the life of Moses, by

Philo-Judæus, we find both variations and additions. Agreeing with

Aristeas in his assertion, that certain learned Jews were sent from

Jerusalem to Alexandria to translate the books of Moses, and that they

were lodged by Ptolemy in the isle of Pharos, he tells us in addition,

that all the translators were kept apart from each other; but that,

notwithstanding this, their translations, upon comparison, were found

exactly to correspond, as it were, by Divine inspiration. From Justin

Martyr we find, that in his time the story was that the seventy-two

translators were shut up each in a separate cell, where no intercourse

could possibly take place; but that the translations, when produced,

were found to agree not only in sense but verbally, not varying even in

a single syllable. Here we certainly find a miracle implied; and in the

time of Justin the story must have been well established, since he

mentions his having seen the cells himself. With respect to the number

of the cells, however, there must have been, as there easily might be,

some uncertainty, for Epiphanius mentions only thirty-six. But the story

had been made to shape itself according to the fact; and it was reported

in his time, that, instead of a cell being allotted to each translator,

two were shut up in each cell, who having been employed from sunrise

till the evening, translated in order, not merely the Pentateuch, but

each of the books of the Old Testament, and they so completed their

work, that there was not to be found the slightest difference in any of

the thirty-six versions; an astonishing harmony, in which a singular

miracle of Divine providence could not fail to be traced.

Now, if to these statements implicit credit be given, the question is

decided as to the miraculous origin and consequent inspiration of the

Septuagint. But to these stories there are several obvious objections.

We do not for a moment assent to the principle of that objection which

is urged by the learned and candid Dupin, who, among the Romanists, is

almost singular in opposing the Divine origin of the LXX., when he asks

why there should be seventy-two translators when twelve would have

sufficed? For this is the very spirit of rationalism: “_I_ do not see

why such should have been the case; and therefore it was _not_ the

case.” To such an objection the answer of the equally learned Dr. Brett,

among Protestants the chief vindicator of the Divine origin of the

Septuagint, is more than sufficient, when he urges that we might as well

deny that, on our authorized English version, fifty-two persons were

employed, when by twelve, or even by two, the work might have been

accomplished. Nor would he insist, with Dean Prideaux, that the stories

must be rejected, because the Septuagint is written in the Alexandrian

dialect; and that, therefore, it could not have been effected, according

to the supposition, by Jews sent from Judea; for there is no reason to

suppose that the Greek spoken in Palestine was much different from that

used in Egypt, that language having been introduced into both countries

only about fifty years before by the same people—the Macedonians.

Indeed, a comparison of the language of the New Testament with that of

the Septuagint will disarm this objection of its force. We may, indeed,

afford to give up another objection, which has very plausibly been

urged, though its character is rationalistic, viz. that to collect six

learned men from each tribe would have been difficult, if not

impossible, the ten tribes having been dispersed after the taking of

Samaria; for we know that many individuals belonging to these tribes

were incorporated with the Jews, and there may have been means still

left for distinguishing them. But, after all these allowances, there is

strong internal evidence against these stories, arising from the

difference of the manner and the style in which the several books are

translated. In some the Hebraisms are said to preserved, in others not;

some books (the Pentateuch for instance, the Proverbs, Ezekiel, Amos,

Judges, Kings, and many of the Psalms) are well executed, while the

translation of Isaiah is bad, and that of Daniel was so decidedly

incorrect, that it was rejected by Origen, and its place supplied by the

version of Theodotion. Now, is it probable that, if the Septuagint had

been, according to the accounts already given, the work of the same men,

at the same time, and acting under a miraculous inspiration, such very

material difference should exist between the several books? Our own

authorized version, though made by different persons, and though some of

the books may be more correctly rendered than others, nevertheless

preserves a uniformity of style which stamps it as being all the work of

the same age. And the fact that this is not the case with respect to the

Septuagint, is a presumption against its being the work of the same men

living at the same time. And this is a consideration which prepares us

to regard the external evidence with some suspicion. When, indeed, we

look to the external evidence, we find that the authority which was at

first assumed only for the Pentateuch is gradually assumed for all the

books of the Old Testament. In Aristeas we read of no miracle: the

miracle was evidently gradually introduced and enlarged upon, until

subsequent writers believed it to be a fact. And we are always and most

justly suspicious of a story which thus

“Mobilitate viget viresque acquirit eundo.”

Each successive writer has added to the marvellous. And we are,

therefore, justified in deducting from the account each marvellous

addition. And when we have done this, what is the result? We find the

simple fact, that, about the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and under the

direction of Demetrius Phalereus, a translation into Greek of the Mosaic

books was made by persons sent from Judea. We must indeed go a step

further, and deduct from the original statement, the assertion that the

translation was made “_by the direction_ of Demetrius Phalereus;” for

though Demetrius was in great credit at Alexandria till the death of

Soter, he was, immediately after that event, “disgraced by Philadelphus,

and perished in confinement.” We cannot, therefore, attribute more than

the original suggestion to Demetrius. But that, with this necessary

deduction, we may fairly admit this, or at least the historical fact

that it embodies, appears from the improbability of these stories having

no foundation, and from the fact that both Ælian (_Var. Hist._ iii. 17)

and Plutarch (_Opp._ t. ii. p. 189) inform us that Demetrius was

appointed by one of the Ptolemies to preside over the drawing up of a

code of laws, and had advised his sovereign to collect all the books he

could which treated of political subjects, and in which doctrines were

laid down which even their most familiar friends would not dare to

mention to kings. It derives strength also from the circumstance, that

the Samaritans contended with the Jews for the honour of being the

authors of the Septuagint; pretending that Ptolemy, having heard of the

disagreement between the two nations, caused a translation to be made of

the Samaritan copy of the Septuagint, which he preferred to the copy he

received from Jerusalem. Although this story is not corroborated, it is

not impossible that a collation of the two copies may have taken place,

care having evidently been taken to procure as good a version as

possible. It may be proper to mention, that by Clemens Alexandrinus and

by Eusebius, a quotation from an Alexandrian Jew and Peripatetic

philosopher named Aristobulus has been preserved, in which he affirms

that a Greek translation of the Old Testament was in existence anterior

to the Septuagint, of which Plato and other Greek philosophers availed

themselves. That some small portions of the ancient Scriptures may have

been translated is far from impossible; but we cannot attach any weight

to the unsupported testimony of a person who lived only 176 years before

the Christian æra, and adduced in support of what was at the time a

favourite theory with the Jews. His testimony, however, is of some

importance, as proving that the Greek version of the Old Testament,

which was then in use, was universally referred to the age of Ptolemy

Philadelphus.

After taking into consideration all these various circumstances, all

that we can satisfactorily say of the Septuagint is, that the Mosaic

books were translated into Greek about 285 years before CHRIST, to which

the other books were added from time to time, especially when, on

occasion of the prohibition by Antiochus Epiphanes to read the law, the

prophets used to be read publicly in the synagogues, and on the

restoration of the law became “a second lesson.” It is generally

admitted that the work was completed in the main parts prior to the

middle of the second century, before the birth of our SAVIOUR; that it

was used as a sort of authorized version by the Jews of Alexandria, and

by the Hellenistic Jews in general; and that as such it is expressly

quoted nearly eighty times in the writings of the New Testament, being

indirectly referred to much more frequently. And thus, to adopt the very

beautiful and pious language of Dr. Lightfoot, “the greatest authority

of this translation appeareth in that the holy Greek of the New

Testament doth so much follow it. For as GOD useth this translation as a

harbinger to the fetching in of the Gentiles, so when it was grown into

authority by the time of CHRIST’S coming, it seemed good to his infinite

wisdom to add to its authority himself, the better to forward the

building of the Church. And admirable it is to see with what sweetness

and harmony the New Testament doth follow this translation sometimes

beside the Old, to show that he who gave the Old can and may best

expound it in the New.”—_Works_, iv. 32. See _Owen on the Septuagint:

Hodius de Bib. Textibus Originalibus_.

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

SEPULCHRE. A niche, generally at the north side of the altar, used in

the scenic representations of our SAVIOUR’S burial and resurrection, on

Good Friday and Easter, before the Reformation, and representing our

LORD’S tomb, is called the Holy Sepulchre. It is sometimes quite plain,

sometimes gorgeously adorned; the general subjects, where it is much

decorated, being the Roman soldiers sleeping, on the base, and angels

censing at the top. There is a remarkably fine series of these in the

churches of Lincolnshire, and in Lincoln cathedral, perhaps the most

beautiful in the kingdom.

SEQUESTRATION. This is a separating the thing in controversy from the

possession of both the contending parties.

When a living becomes void by the death of an incumbent or otherwise,

the ordinary is to send out his sequestration, to have the cure

supplied, and to preserve the profits (after the expenses deducted) for

the use of the successor. Sometimes a benefice is left under

sequestration for many years together, namely, when it is of so small

value that no clergyman, fit to serve the cure, will be at the charge of

taking it by institution: in this case, the sequestration is committed

sometimes to the curate only, sometimes to the curate and churchwardens

jointly.

Sometimes the profits of a living are sequestered for neglect of duty:

but that kind of sequestration most generally known and understood,

because applicable to civil affairs, is upon the queen’s writ to the

bishop to satisfy the debts of the incumbent.

This is where a judgment has been obtained in the law courts against a

clergyman; and upon a _fieri facias_ directed to the sheriff to levy the

debt and damages, he makes his return that the defendant in a clerk

beneficed, having no lay fee. Whereupon a _levari facias_ is directed to

the bishop to levy the same of his ecclesiastical goods, and by virtue

thereof the property of the benefice shall be sequestered. In this case,

the bishop may name the sequestrators himself, or may grant the

sequestration to such persons as shall be named by the party who

obtained the writ.

There are several other circumstances mentioned in books of

ecclesiastical law, under which sequestration may take place; but it may

be stated generally that, for any damages to which an incumbent may be

made liable by civil action, the property of the benefice may also be

made answerable by the process of sequestration. But it seems that the

bishop is the party through whom this confiscation for the benefit of

the creditor must take place. The sequestration is his act, to which he

is bound by the queen’s writ; and it has been held that a bill filed in

equity against sequestrators only was insufficient for want of parties.

The bishop should be a party, for the sequestrator is accountable to him

for what he receives.

SERAPHIM denotes an order of angels who surround the throne of the LORD.

Derived from a Hebrew word, which signifies _fiery_. (See _Angels_.)

SERMONS are orations or discourses, delivered by the clergy of the

Christian Church in their religious assemblies.

In the ancient Church, immediately after the reading of the psalms and

lessons out of the Scriptures, before the catechumens were dismissed,

followed the sermon, which the bishop, or some other appointed by him,

made to the people. This, being done in the presence of the catechumens,

was therefore reckoned a part of the _Missa Catechumenorum_ or

ante-communion service. Such discourses were commonly termed _homilies_,

from the Greek ὁμιλίαι, which signifies indifferently any discourse of

instruction to the people. Among the Latins they were frequently called

_tractatus_, and the preachers _tractatores_.

Preaching, anciently, was one of the chief offices of a bishop; insomuch

that, in the African Churches, a presbyter was never known to preach

before a bishop in his cathedral church, till St. Austin’s time. In the

Eastern Church, presbyters were indeed allowed to preach before the

bishop; but this was not to discharge him of the duty, for still he

preached a sermon at the same time after them. In the lesser churches of

the city and country, the office of preaching was devolved upon the

presbyters; but deacons never were allowed to perform it. There are

numberless passages in the writings of the Fathers, which speak of

preaching as a duty indispensably incumbent on a bishop. Many canons of

councils either suppose or enjoin it. And in the imperial laws there are

several edicts of the secular power to the same purpose. Particularly in

the Theodosian code, there is one jointly made by the three emperors

Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, which bears this title, _De munere

seu officio episcoporum in prædicando verbo Dei_, “of the duty and

office of bishops in preaching the word of GOD.”

It has been a question, whether laymen were ever allowed by authority to

make sermons to the people. It is certain they did it in a private way,

as catechists, in their catechetic schools at Alexandria and other

places; but this was a different thing from public preaching in the

church. Sometimes the monks, who were only laymen, took upon them to

preach; but this was censured and opposed, as an usurpation of an office

that did not belong to them. Yet in some cases a special commission was

given to a layman to preach; as in the case of Origen, who was licensed

by Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, to preach and expound the Scriptures

in the church, before he was in orders. As to women, whatever gifts they

could pretend to, they were never allowed to preach publicly in the

church; agreeably to the apostolical rule, “Let your women keep silence

in the churches,” &c. But they might teach those of their own sex, as

private catechists, and to prepare them for baptism. And this was the

office of the deaconesses. The Montanists were a noted sect for giving

the liberty of preaching to women, under pretence of inspiration by the

SPIRIT; for they had their prophetesses, their women-bishops, and

women-presbyters.

Next to the persons, the manner in which the office of preaching was

executed, comes to be considered. And, first, it is observable, that

they had sometimes two or three sermons preached in the same assembly,

first by the presbyters and then by the bishop. When two or more bishops

happened to be present in the same assembly, it was usual for several of

them to preach one after another, reserving the last place for the most

honourable person. In some places they had sermons every day, especially

in Lent, and the festival days of Easter. St. Chrysostom’s homilies were

evidently preached in Lent, one day after another; and, in St.

Augustine’s homilies, there are frequent references to the sermon made

_heri_ and _hesterno die_. In many places they had sermons twice a day

for the better edification of the people. But this is chiefly to be

understood of cities and large churches. For in the country parishes

there was not such frequent preaching.

The next thing to be observed is, their different sorts of sermons, and

different ways of preaching. These are distinguished into four kinds; 1.

Expositions of Scripture. 2. Panegyrical discourses upon the saints and

martyrs. 3. Sermons upon particular times, occasions, and festivals. 4.

Sermons upon particular doctrines, or moral subjects. There are examples

of all these kinds in St. Chrysostom’s and St. Augustine’s homilies, the

two great standards of preaching in the Greek and Latin Churches. But

though most of these were studied and elaborate discourses, penned and

composed beforehand, yet some were also extempore, spoken without any

previous composition, and taken down in short-hand from the mouth of the

preacher. Origen was the first that began the way of extempore preaching

in the church. The catechetical discourses of St. Cyril are thought to

be of this kind; for at the beginning of every one almost it is said in

the title to be σχεδιασθεῖσα, which the critics translate _an extempore

discourse_. Instances of this sort were very frequent among the Fathers

of the ancient Church. And, in regard to this, they are wont frequently

to mention the assistance of the SPIRIT in composing and preaching their

sermons; by which they did not mean any kind of enthusiasm, but only the

concurrence of the Spirit of GOD with their honest endeavours, as a

blessing on their labours and studies.

Upon this account it was usual for the preacher to usher in his

discourse with a short prayer for such Divine assistance. In this sense

we are to understand St. Chrysostom, when he says, we must first pray,

and then preach. Sometimes, before they began to preach, they used the

common salutation, _Pax vobis, Peace be with you_; to which the people

answered, _And with thy spirit_. And sometimes they prefaced the sermon

with a short form of benediction, especially in times of calamity and

distress, or of happy deliverances out of them. Sometimes they preached

without any text, and sometimes upon more texts than one. Nor did they

entertain their auditory with light and ludicrous matters, or fabulous

and romantic stories, such as those with which preaching so much

abounded in the age before the Reformation. Their subjects, as Gregory

Nazianzen describes the choice of them, were commonly such as these: of

the world’s creation, and the soul of man; of angels; of providence; of

the formation of man, and his restoration; of CHRIST’S first and second

coming, his passion, &c.; of the resurrection and judgment, &c.

And as they were careful in the choice of their subject, so were they in

the manner of dressing it up, and delivering it, that they might answer

the true ends of preaching. St. Augustine has laid down excellent rules

for the practice of Christian eloquence; and if we will take his

character of the ancient preachers, it was in short this: and their

discourses were always upon weighty and heavenly matters, and their

style answerable to the subject, being plain, elegant, majestic, and

nervous; fitly adapted to instruct and delight, to convince and charm

their hearers. It was no part of the ancient oratory to raise the

affections of the auditory, either by gesticulations, or the use of

external shows and representations of things in their sermons, as is now

very common in the Romish Church. As to the length of their sermons,

scarce any of them would last an hour, and many not half the time. And

among those of St. Augustine there are many which a man may pronounce

distinctly, and deliver decently, in eight minutes. They always

concluded their sermons with a doxology to the HOLY TRINITY. And it is

further observable, that the preacher usually delivered his sermon

sitting, and the people heard it standing; though there was no certain

rule about this, but the custom varied in different Churches.

It was a peculiar custom in the African Church, when the preacher

chanced to cite some remarkable text in the middle of his sermon, for

the people to join with him in repeating the close of it. St. Augustine

takes notice of this in one of his sermons, where having begun those

words of St. Paul, _The end of the commandment is_ ——, the people all

cried out, _charity out of a pure heart_. But it was a much more general

custom for the people to testify their esteem for the preacher, and

approbation of his sermon, by public applauses and acclamations in the

church. Thus we are told the people applauded St. Chrysostom’s sermons,

some by tossing their garments and waving their handkerchiefs. Many

auditors practised the art of notaries, and took down the sermons word

for word as they were delivered. Hence we possess copies of sermons

delivered extempore.—_Bingham._

The sermon in the Church of England is enjoined after the Nicene Creed,

according to ancient custom: but nowhere else; although it is mentioned

as discretionary in the marriage service, for which an exhortation,

there given, may be substituted. But evening sermons have been customary

time out of mind in some churches, as at St. Paul’s, e. g. and some

other great churches. The sermon in Queen Elizabeth’s time was preached

at the chapel royal in the afternoon, in order that it might not

interfere with St. Paul’s Cross sermon.—_Strype, Annals, Pref._ Book i.

ch. xxiii., Anno 1561.

SERVICE. “The common prayers of the Church, commonly called _Divine

service_.”—_Preface to the Book of Common Prayer._ All Divine offices

celebrated in the church constitute part of the Divine _service_: that

is, the outward worship which all God’s servants render him. The term

however is now used in a technical sense peculiar to the English Church,

to signify those stated parts of the Liturgy which are set to music, as

distinguished from those anthems, the words of which are not a matter of

settled regulation. The term is now generally restricted to the Te Deum,

and other canticles in Morning and Evening Prayer; and all the parts of

the Communion Service appointed to be sung, including also the responses

to the Commandments. The early Church musicians, however, set the whole

service to music; (and hence the term;) that is, the pieces, (or

versicles before the Psalms,) the Venite, one or more chants for the

Psalms, the Te Deum and canticles, the versicles and responses after the

Creed, the Amens, the Litany, and the Communion Office. The most perfect

service, in the enlarged and proper sense, which exists in the Church of

England, is Tallis’s, published in Dr. Boyer’s Cathedral Music, and

since republished and corrected by a second Edition. Services are as old

as the Reformation, and have ever constituted an integral part of the

choral system as observed in cathedral churches and colleges.—_Jebb._

SEVEN SACRAMENTS. (See _Sacrament_.) The Papists extend and enforce the

word sacrament to five ordinances which are not sacraments in the strict

sense. Against these our 25th Article is directed, which is as follows:

“Sacraments ordained by CHRIST be not only badges or tokens of Christian

men’s professions, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and

effectual signs of grace and GOD’S good will towards us, by the which he

doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also

strengthen and confirm, our faith in him.

“There are two sacraments ordained of CHRIST our LORD in the gospel;

that is to say, baptism and the supper of the LORD.

“Those five, commonly called sacraments, that is to say, confirmation,

penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction, are not to be counted

for sacraments of the gospel, being such as have grown, partly of the

corrupt following of the apostles, partly are states of life allowed in

the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of sacraments with

baptism and the LORD’S supper, for that they have not any visible sign

or ceremony ordained of GOD.

“The sacraments were not ordained of CHRIST to be gazed upon, or to be

carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as

worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but

they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as

the apostle St. Paul saith.”

Peter Lombard saying, that baptism, confirmation, the blessing of bread,

penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, are sacraments of the

New Testament, the Papists have thence gathered, and ever since held,

that there are seven sacraments instituted by CHRIST, truly and properly

so called; insomuch that, in the Council of Trent, they determined that

whosoever said there are more or less, should be accursed. Now our

Church, not much fearing their curse, hath here declared, that only two

of them, to wit, baptism and the eucharist, are properly sacraments of

the New Testament, and that the other five are not to be accounted so;

not but that, as the word _sacrament_ was anciently used for any sacred

sign or ceremony, it may, in some sense, be applied to these also; but,

as it is here expressed, those five have not the like nature of

sacraments with baptism and the LORD’S supper. They may call them

sacraments if they please; but they are not such sacraments as baptism

and the LORD’S supper are, and therefore not sacraments properly so

called. For that these two are sacraments properly so called, is

acknowledged on both sides; and therefore, whatsoever is a sacrament

properly so called, must have the like nature with them, so as to agree

with them in all those things wherein their sacramental nature

consisteth, that is, in such things wherein they two most nearly agree

with one another: for that wherein the species do most nearly agree with

one another, must needs be their general nature. Now, there are several

things wherein these two do so agree; for they are both instituted by

CHRIST. They have both external signs and symbols determined in the

gospel, which represent inward and spiritual grace unto us; yea, and

they have both promises annexed to them: whereas the other five agree

with these in none of these things, or, howsoever, none of them agree in

all of them, and, by consequence, cannot be sacraments properly so

called.

I. First, They do not agree with them in their institution from CHRIST.

That baptism and the LORD’S supper were instituted by CHRIST, they

cannot deny; but that the other were, we do.

1. As, first, for _confirmation_, which we confess was a custom

anciently used in the Church of CHRIST, and still ought to be retained,

even for children after baptism to be offered to the bishop, that they

might receive the HOLY GHOST by prayers, and the laying on of hands. But

some of the Papists themselves acknowledge, that this was never

instituted and ordained by CHRIST as the other sacraments were; neither

did the Fathers use this as any distinct sacrament of itself, but as the

perfection and consummation of the sacrament of baptism; and the chrism

or ointment which they used was only a ceremony annexed to baptism also,

as the cross and other ceremonies were.

2. And as for _penance_, which they define to be a sacrament of the

remission of sins which are committed after baptism, I would willingly

know where or when CHRIST ever instituted such a sacrament? What though

he commanded all men to repent, is every command of CHRIST the

institution of a sacrament? Or is it outward penance that is here

commanded? Or, rather, is it not inward and true repentance? And what

though CHRIST said, “Those sins that you forgive, they are forgiven;”

what matter what form, what signs of sacrament, were appointed and

instituted in these words?

3. And so for _orders_, or the ordination of ministers, we know it is a

thing instituted of CHRIST: must it needs be, therefore, a sacrament, or

instituted as a sacrament? Because CHRIST ordained that bishops,

priests, and deacons should be ordained, doth it therefore follow that

he intended and instituted their ordination as a sacrament?

4. And as for _matrimony_, we know their corrupt translation has it,

“And this is a great sacrament,” (Eph. v. 32,) instead of “this is a

great mystery,” or secret, as the Syriac and Arabic read it; and shall

their false translation of the Scripture be a sufficient ground for

CHRIST’S institution of a sacrament?

5. And, lastly, for _extreme unction_, which Bellarmine tells us “is

truly and properly a sacrament, wherein the organs of the senses, the

eyes, nostrils, lips, hands, feet, and reins, in those that are about to

die, are anointed with exorcised oil.” What institution have we for this

sacrament in the gospel? Yes, say they, the apostles anointed with oil

many that were sick, and healed them. (Mark vi. 13.) It is very good;

the apostles’ practice and example were the institution of a sacrament.

By this rule, whatsoever the apostles did must be a sacrament; and so

plucking off the ears of corn must be a sacrament too at length. But

certainly, if example must be the ground of institution, anointing the

eyes of the blind with clay and spittle must be much more a sacrament

than the anointing of the sick with oil; for it was the apostles only

that did this, but it was our SAVIOUR himself that did that. (John ix.

6.) But the apostle saith, “Is any one sick amongst you? let him call

for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him

with oil, in the name of the LORD.” (James v. 14.) It is true: but what

analogy is there betwixt this anointing of the apostles and the extreme

unction of the Papists? This was to be applied to any that were sick,

“Is any one sick amongst you?” but theirs only to such as are past all

hopes of recovery: the apostles’ was to be done by several elders; the

Papists’ only by one priest: the apostles’ was to be performed with

simple oil; the Papists’ with consecrated and exorcised oil. So that the

Papists’ extreme unction cannot possibly lay claim to any institution

from that place, as Cajetan himself acknowledged.

II. And as for external signs and symbols, analogically representing

inward spiritual grace, which constitute the very form of the sacraments

of baptism and the LORD’S supper, it is in vain to look for the like in

the other sacraments, falsely so called, as is observed in the Article

itself. For example: what is the sign in penance? Or, if there be a

sign, what is the grace that is analogically represented by it? I know

they cannot agree amongst themselves, what is the form or sign in this

sacrament? Some say the words of absolution, others absolution itself,

others imposition of hands; but whichsoever of these we take, they

cannot be such signs or symbols as are in baptism and the LORD’S supper.

For there is water, and bread, and wine, all substances; whereas these

are all actions, and so accidents. The like may be said also of

confirmation and orders, which have no such visible sign, howsoever not

appointed by CHRIST. And so for matrimony too, there is no visible sign

of any invisible grace can possibly be fastened upon it. To say that the

priest’s words, or the parties’ mutual consent, is the form or sign, is

a mere evasion: for the parties’ consent is an invisible thing, and

therefore cannot be a visible sign: the words of the priest are mere

words, which may be heard indeed, but cannot be seen, and so cannot be

any visible sign. Neither are words significative elements, as bread and

wine are, and therefore cannot be the signs of such sacraments as they

be. And for extreme unction, there is, I confess, an external sign in

it, even unction; but what analogy hath this external sign to any

internal grace? Two things, they say, are represented by it, bodily

health and forgiveness of sins; but is bodily health an inward grace?

Or, suppose it was, what similitude is there betwixt that and oil, or

unction? Forgiveness of sins, I know, is a spiritual grace; but none of

them durst ever yet undertake to show the analogy betwixt the outward

sign and this invisible grace. And seeing there is no analogy betwixt

the oil and remission of sins, that cannot be looked upon as any

sacramental sign or symbol, as water and wine are in the other

sacraments, exactly representing the inward spiritual grace that is

signified by them. To all which we might add also, that it is the nature

of a sacrament to have promises annexed to them—promises of spiritual

things. And what promises do we find in Scripture made to matrimony, to

confirmation, to orders, and the rest.

But whatsoever other things the Papists would obtrude upon us as

sacraments, it is certain that we find our SAVIOUR solemnly instituting

two, and but two, sacraments in the New Testament; to wit, these here

mentioned, baptism and the LORD’S supper. And, therefore, when the

apostle compares the law with the gospel, he instances these two

sacraments only, and none else: “And were all baptized into Moses in the

cloud, and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat.” (1 Cor.

x. 2, 3.) And he again joins these two together, saying, “For by one

SPIRIT are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or

Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink

into one spirit.” (xii. 13.) And thus do the Fathers observe how, when

one of the soldiers pierced our SAVIOUR’S side, and there came out blood

and water, (John xix. 34,) the two sacraments of the New Testament were

thereby intimated to us.—_Beveridge._

SEXAGESIMA. (See _Septuagesima_.)

SEXTON; from _Sacristan_. The sexton was originally regarded as the

keeper of the holy things devoted to Divine worship: he is appointed by

the minister or parishioners according to custom; and his salary is

according to the custom of each parish, or is settled by the parish

vestry. In the case of Olive _v._ Ingram it was held, that a woman is as

capable of being elected to this office as a man, and that women may

have a voice in the election. The duty of a sexton is to keep the church

and pews cleanly swept and sufficiently aired; to make graves, and open

vaults for the burial of the dead; to provide (under the churchwarden’s

direction) candles, &c. for lighting the church; bread and wine, and

other necessaries, for the communion, and also water for baptisms; to

attend the church during Divine service, in order to open the pew doors

for the parishioners, keep out dogs, and prevent disturbances, &c. It

has been held that if a sexton be removed without sufficient cause, a

mandamus will lie for his restitution. But where it appeared that the

office was held only during pleasure, and not for life, the court

refused to interfere. The salary, however, generally depends on the

annual vote of the parishioners.

SHAFT. The central portion of a pillar, resting on the base, and

supporting the capital. (See _Pillar_.)

SHAKERS. A party of enthusiasts left England for America in 1774, and

settled in the province of New York, where the society soon increased,

and received the ludicrous denomination of _Shakers_, from the practice

of shaking and dancing. They affected to consider themselves as forming

the only true Church, and their preachers as possessed of the apostolic

gift: the wicked, they thought, would only be punished for a time,

except those who should be so incorrigibly depraved as to fall from

_their_ Church. They disowned baptism and the eucharist, not as in

themselves wrong, but as unnecessary in the new dispensation, which they

declared was opening upon mankind; and this was the _Millennium_, in

which, however, they expected that CHRIST would appear personally only

to his saints. Their leader was Anna Leese, whom they believed to be the

woman mentioned in the Apocalypse, as clothed with the sun, and the moon

under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. The

successors of this _elect body_ have been, they say, as perfect as she

was, and have possessed, like her, unreserved intercourse with angels

and departed spirits, and the power of imparting spiritual gifts.

SHECHINAH. (_Hebr._) By this word the Hebrews meant the visible

manifestation of the Divine presence in the temple of Jerusalem. It was

a bright cloud, resting over the propitiatory or mercy-seat; from whence

GOD gave forth his oracles with an articulate voice, when he was

consulted by the high priest in favour of the people. Hence GOD is often

said in Scripture to sit upon the cherubims, or between the cherubims,

because the cherubims shadowed with their wings the mercy-seat, over

which the Shechinah resided.

The Rabbins tell us, that the Shechinah first resided in the tabernacle

prepared by Moses in the wilderness, and that it descended therein on

the day of its consecration. From thence it passed into the sanctuary of

Solomon’s temple, on the day of its dedication by that prince; where it

continued to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the

Chaldeans, and was never after seen.

The Mohammedans pretend the Shechinah was in the shape of a leopard; and

that, in time of war, when the ark of the covenant, over which it

resided, was carried into the field of battle, it raised itself up, and

sent forth such a dreadful cry, as threw the enemy into the utmost

confusion. Others of them imagine it to have had the figure of a man,

and say, that, when it was carried into the army, it stood up upon its

feet, and came forth like a vehement wind, which, rushing upon the

enemy, put them to flight.

SHEWBREAD. The name given to those loaves of bread which the Hebrew

priests placed, every sabbath day, upon the golden table in the

sanctuary. The Hebrew literally signifies _bread of faces_, these loaves

being square, and having, as it were, four faces, or four sides. They

are called _shewbread_ by the Greek and Latin interpreters, because they

were exposed to public view before the ark. The table on which they were

placed was called _the table of shewbread_.

The shewbread consisted of twelve loaves, according to the number of the

tribes. These were served up hot on the sabbath day, and at the same

time the stale ones, which had been exposed during the whole week, were

taken away. It was not lawful for any one to eat of these loaves, but

the priests only. David, indeed, compelled by urgent necessity, broke

through this restriction. This offering was accompanied with salt and

frankincense, which was burnt upon the table at the time when they set

on fresh loaves.

Authors are not agreed as to the manner in which the loaves of shewbread

were ranged upon the table. Some think there were three piles of them,

of four in each; others say, there were but two piles, of six loaves in

each. The Rabbins tell us that, between every two loaves, there were two

golden pipes, supported by forks of the same metal, whose ends rested

upon the ground, to convey air to the loaves, to hinder them from

growing mouldy.

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

SHRIVE. To administer confession.

SHROVE TUESDAY. The day before Ash Wednesday, so called in the Church of

England from the old Saxon word _shrive_, _shrif_, or _shrove_, which,

in that language, signifies to _confess_; it being our duty to confess

our sins to GOD on that day, in order to receive the blessed sacrament

of the eucharist, and thereby qualify ourselves for a more religious

observance of the holy time of Lent immediately ensuing.

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

SICK, VISITATION OF. By Canon 76, “When any person is dangerously sick

in any parish, the minister or curate, having knowledge thereof, shall

resort unto him or her, (if the disease be not known, or probably

suspected, to be infectious,) to instruct and comfort them in their

distress, according to the order of the communion book if he be no

preacher, or if he be a preacher, then as he shall think most needful

and convenient.” And by the rubric, before the office for the Visitation

of the Sick, “When any person is sick, notice shall be given thereof to

the minister of the parish, who shall go to the sick person’s house, and

use the office there appointed. And the minister shall examine the sick

person whether he repent him truly of his sins, and be in charity with

all the world; exhorting him to forgive, from the bottom of his heart,

all persons that have offended him; and if he hath offended any other,

to ask them forgiveness; and where he hath done injury or wrong to any

man, that he may make amends to the utmost of his power. And if he hath

not before disposed of his goods, let him then be admonished to make his

will, and to declare his debts what he oweth, and what is owing to him,

for the better discharge of his conscience, and the quietness of his

executors. But men should often be put in remembrance to take order for

the settling of their temporal estates, while they are in health. And

the minister should not omit earnestly to move such sick persons, as are

of ability, to be liberal to the poor.” (See _Absolution_, _Communion of

Sick_, _Visitation of Sick_.)

SIDESMAN. It was usual for bishops in their visitations, to summon some

credible persons out of every parish, whom they examined on oath

concerning the condition of the church, and other affairs relating to

it. Afterwards these persons became standing officers in several places,

especially in great cities; and when personal visitations were a little

disused, and when it became a custom for the parishioners to repair the

body of the church, which began about the fifteenth century, these

officers were still more necessary, and then they were called _Testes

Synodales_ or _Juratores Synodi_; some called them synods-men, and now

they are corruptly called _sidesmen_. They are chosen every year,

according to the custom of the place, and their business is to assist

the churchwardens in inquiring into things relating to the church, and

making presentment of such matters as are punishable by the

ecclesiastical laws. Hence they are also called _Questmen_; but now the

whole office for the most part is devolved upon the churchwardens,

though not universally. (See _Churchwardens_.)

SIGNIFICAVIT. The writ _de excommunicato capiendo_ was called a

_significavit_ from the word at the beginning of the writ: _Rex

vicecomiti L. salutem_. SIGNIFICAVIT _nobis venerabilis Pater, H. L.

Episcopus, &c._

ST. SIMON AND ST. JUDE’S DAY. A holy-day appointed by the Church for the

commemoration of these saints, observed in our Church on the 28th

October.

The first is St. Simon, surnamed the Canaanite and Zelotes, which two

names are, in fact, the same; for the Hebrew term, _Canaan_, signifies a

zealot.

There was a sect of men called Zealots, about the time of CHRIST, in

Judea, who, out of a pretended zeal for GOD’S honour, would commit the

most grievous outrages: they would choose and ordain high priests out of

the basest of the people, and murder men of the highest and most

illustrious extraction. And it is highly probable that this Simon,

before his conversion and call, was one of this hot-headed sect; or, at

least, that there was some fire or fierceness conspicuous in his temper

that occasioned his being distinguished by that warm name. He was one of

the twelve apostles, and a relation of our blessed LORD; either his

half-brother, being one of Joseph’s sons by another wife, or a cousin by

his mother’s side.

The other saint this day commemorated, was likewise one of the twelve

apostles, and James’s brother, and consequently of the same degree of

consanguinity to our blessed SAVIOUR.

He had two surnames, viz. Thaddeus, which seems to be nothing more than

a diminutive of the term _Judas_, as it is derived from the same Hebrew

root; and Lebbeus, which is derived from another Hebrew root, signifying

little heart.

SIMONY. The corrupt presentation of any one to an ecclesiastical

benefice for money, gift, or reward. It is so called from the sin of

Simon Magus, who thought to have purchased the power of conferring the

gift of the HOLY GHOST for money (Acts viii. 19); though the purchasing

holy orders seemed to approach nearer to his offence. It is by the canon

law a very grievous offence; and is so much the more odious, because, as

Sir Edward Coke observes, it is ever accompanied with perjury; for the

presentee is sworn to have committed no simony.

Canon 40, “to avoid the detestable sin of simony,” provides this

declaration upon oath, to be taken by every person on being instituted

to a benefice; “I do swear that I have made no simoniacal payment,

contract, or promise, directly or indirectly, by myself, or by any other

to my knowledge or with my consent, to any person or persons whatsoever,

for or concerning the procuring or obtaining of this ecclesiastical

place, preferment, office, or living, nor will I at any time hereafter

perform or satisfy any such kind of payment, contract, or promise, made

by any other without my knowledge or consent: so help me GOD through

JESUS CHRIST.”

And by statute 31 Eliz. c. 6, for the avoiding of simony and corruption,

it is provided that all presentations made for such consideration as is

described in the above-quoted canon, shall be utterly void; and any

person or body politic or corporate, presenting to a benefice for such

consideration, shall forfeit two years’ value or profits of the

benefice, and the person procuring himself to be so presented shall be

for ever disabled from holding that benefice; and any person who shall

take any reward, other than the usual fees for admitting or inducting to

a benefice, shall forfeit two years’ profits of such benefice; and the

admission or induction shall be void, and the patron may present again

as if the person so inducted or admitted were naturally dead.

In the great case of the _Bishop of London_ and _Lewis Disney Ffytche_,

Esq., in the year 1780, the rectory of the parish church of Woodham

Walter in Essex being vacant, Mr. Ffytche presented his clerk, the Rev.

John Eyre, to the bishop for institution. The bishop being informed that

the said John Eyre had given his patron a bond in a large penalty to

resign the said rectory at any time upon his request, and the said John

Eyre acknowledging that he had given such a bond, the bishop refused to

institute him to the living.

Thereupon Mr. Ffytche brought a _quare impedit_ against the bishop in

the court of Common Pleas. The cause was decided against the bishop in

that court, and, subsequently, in the court of Queen’s Bench; but upon

appeal to the House of Lords, after much debate, and the opinions of the

judges being called for, the decision of the courts below was, upon the

motion of Lord Thurlow, reversed. The lords, however, divided upon the

question, and the numbers were nineteen to eighteen for reversing the

decision of the inferior law courts, all the bishops present voting in

the majority. But that decision of the House of Lords, though much

objected to by lawyers at the time, is now held to be settled law. The

ground of the decision was, that the bond to the patron to resign was a

benefit to the said patron, and therefore the presentation was void. The

law upon this matter will be found in the opinions of the judges given

to the House of Lords, in 1826, in the case _Fletcher v. Lord Sondes_.

See Bingham’s Reports, iii. 501. The decision in this case led to the

passing of the Act 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 25, and was followed by the Act 9

Geo. IV. c. 94, by which bonds of resignation in certain cases are

rendered legally valid.

SIN, DEADLY SIN, AND SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. Our sixteenth Article,

headed “Of Sin after Baptism,” runs thus: “Not every deadly sin

willingly committed after baptism, is sin against the HOLY GHOST, and

unpardonable; wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to

such as fall into sin, after baptism. After we have received the HOLY

GHOST we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the

grace of GOD (we may) arise again, and amend our lives; and therefore

they are to be condemned that say they can no more sin as long as they

live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.”

This Article is levelled against the doctrine of the Novatians of old,

who held every sin committed after baptism to be unpardonable. This

doctrine being revived by some of the Anabaptists, or other enthusiasts,

who sprang up at the beginning of the Reformation, it is not improbable

that the compilers of the Articles had an eye likewise upon their

heterodoxy. For, as the Papists were wont maliciously to impute the wild

doctrines of all the several sorts of enthusiasts to all Protestants, so

it was thought here convenient to defend our Church against the

imputation of any such opinion.—_Dr. Nicholls._

In the preceding Article (of the XXXIX.) notice was taken of a sect of

Christians who maintain the peccability of CHRIST; and in this we have

to argue against those who contend for the impeccability of man.—_Bp.

Tomline._

By “deadly sin” in this Article we are not to understand such sins as,

in the Church of Rome, are called “mortal,” in opposition to others that

are “venial:” as if some sins, though offences against GOD, and

violations of his law, could be of their own nature such slight things,

that they deserved only temporal punishment, and were to be expiated by

some piece of penance or devotion, or the communication of the merits of

others. The Scripture nowhere teaches us to think so slightly of the

majesty of GOD, or of his law. There is a “curse” upon every one “that

continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to

do them” (Gal. iii. 10); and the same curse must have been on us all, if

CHRIST had not redeemed us from it: “the wages of sin is death.” And St.

James asserts, that there is such a complication of all the precepts of

the law of GOD, both with one another, and with the authority of the

Lawgiver, that “he who offends in one point is guilty of all.” (James

ii. 10, 11.) So since GOD has in his word given us such dreadful

apprehensions of his wrath, and of the guilt of sin, we dare not soften

these to a degree below the majesty of the eternal GOD, and the dignity

of his most holy laws. But after all, we are far from the conceit of the

Stoics, who made all sins alike. We acknowledge that some sins of

ignorance and infirmity may consist with a state of grace; which is

either quite destroyed, or at least much eclipsed and clouded, by other

sins, that are more heinous in their nature, and more deliberately gone

about. It is in this sense that the word “deadly sin” is to be

understood in the Article; for though in the strictness of justice every

sin is “deadly,” yet in the dispensation of the gospel those sins only

are “deadly” that do deeply wound the conscience, and that drive away

grace.—_Bp. Burnet._

Every sin is in its nature deadly, since “the wages of sin is death”

(Rom. vi. 23): and every sin is committed against the HOLY GHOST, as

well as against the FATHER and the SON; but still pardonable, if it be

not that sin which is emphatically styled “the sin against the HOLY

GHOST;” and that is “blasphemy against the HOLY GHOST.” (Matt. xii. 31,

32; Mark iii. 28–30.) Of which sin St. Jerome says, that “they only are

guilty, who, though in miracles they see the very work of GOD, yet

slander them, and say that they are done by the devil; and ascribe to

the operation of that evil spirit, and not to the Divine power, all

those mighty signs and wonders which were wrought for the confirmation

of the gospel.” In relation to all other sins, we are, as Clement of

Rome observes, “to fix our eyes on the blood of CHRIST, which was shed

for our salvation, and hath obtained the grace of repentance for the

whole world.”—_Archdeacon Welchman._

And “the doors,” says Clement of Alexandria, “are open to every one, who

in truth, and with his whole heart, returns to GOD; and the FATHER most

willingly receives a son who truly repents.” This is the general tenor

of Scripture, in which all men are invited to repentance without any

discrimination or exception. And we are told, even under the Mosaic

dispensation, that “though our sins be as scarlet, they shall be as

white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”

(Isaiah i. 18.) And the exhortations to amendment and reformation,

contained in the Epistles, are all addressed to persons who had been

already baptized, and who had been guilty of faults or sins subsequent

to their baptism.—_Bp. Tomline._

The Church of Rome, in order to establish its dangerous doctrine of the

merit of good works, which is equally opposed to Scripture and to fact,

divides sin into two classes: _mortal_ sin, that sin which is in its

nature gross, and is committed knowingly, wilfully, deliberately; and

_venial_ sin, under which head are classed all sins of ignorance and

negligence, and such as are considered small in their nature.

It is difficult to distinguish, in some instances, between mortal sins

and venial sins. But they form two distinct classes of sin, differing

not merely in degree, but in genus or kind.

Mortal sins render the transgressors children of wrath and enemies of

GOD; but it is in regard to venial sins that the error or heresy is

propounded. It is stated that in this mortal life even holy and

justified persons fall into daily venial sins, which, nevertheless, do

not in any way affect or detract from their holy character, “and which

do not exclude the transgressor from the grace of GOD.”

It is here to be observed that we do not deny that a distinction is to

be made between sins of greater or less enormity. But the error of the

Romanist is this—that he makes the two classes of sin to differ not only

in enormity and degree, which we admit to be the case, but also in their

nature and kind. No amount of venial sins, according to Bellarmine,

would ever make a mortal sin.

We also make a distinction of sins: we call some sins deadly, and others

infirmities; we consider the commission of some sins as not inconsistent

with a state of grace, whereas by others the HOLY SPIRIT may be grieved,

done despite unto, and quenched, so that the sinner shall be spiritually

dead: he shall die a second death.

But here is the difference between us and the Romanists: although we

speak of some sins as of less, and of others as of greater enormity, we

consider every sin to be in its nature mortal; that by many little sins

a man may be damned, even as a ship may be sunk by a weight of sand as

well as by a weight of lead; and that they are not damnable to _us_,

only from the constant intercession of CHRIST. Whereas negligences and

ignorances, and sins of lesser enormity, are by the Romanists not

regarded as sins at all, in the proper sense of the word.

Hence _we_ are for ever relying directly upon CHRIST for pardon and for

mercy, while they rely upon their own merits. They appeal to the justice

of GOD; we, knowing that by his justice we must be condemned, confide in

his mercy. _They_ say that venial sin is not in itself mortal; _we_

regard all sin as mortal in itself, but rejoice to know that “if any man

sin” (any man in a state of justification, and, on that account, not

sinning habitually and wilfully) “we have an advocate with the FATHER,

JESUS CHRIST the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins.”

The doctrine of the Church of England leads men to CHRIST, and nails

them prostrate to the foot of the cross; whereas the Romish doctrine,

though taking men to CHRIST in the first instance, soon removes them

from the only rock of salvation, and induces them to rely upon an arm of

flesh. Our doctrine lays low in the dust all human pride, it annihilates

every notion of human merit, and exalts the SAVIOUR as our all in all;

the Romish doctrine, establishing the idea of human merit and

supererogatory works, drives some to despair, and inflames others with

spiritual pride, while it terminates in practical idolatry. Our doctrine

is primitive, catholic, and scriptural, as well as Protestant, ever

reminding us that “there is one GOD, and one Mediator between GOD and

men, the man CHRIST JESUS;” while their doctrine is mediæval,

scholastic, heretical, and opposed to the truth as it is in JESUS.

SI QUIS. (See _Orders, Ordination_.) In the Church of England, before a

person is admitted to holy orders, a notice called the “_Si quis_” (from

the Latin of the words _if any person_, occurring in the form) is

published in the church of the parish where the candidate usually

resides, in the following form: “Notice is hereby given, that A. B., now

resident in this parish, intends to offer himself a candidate for the

holy office of a deacon [or priest] at the ensuing ordination of the

Lord Bishop of ——; and if any person knows any just cause or impediment,

for which he ought not to be admitted into holy orders, he is now to

declare the same, or to signify the same forthwith to the bishop.”

This is a proper occasion, of which the conscientious layman would take

advantage, of testifying, if he knows anything which unfits the

candidate for the sacred office to which he aspires: if no objection be

made, a certificate is forwarded to the bishop, of the publication of

the _Si quis_, with no impediment alleged, by the officiating minister

and the churchwardens.

In the case of a bishop, the _Si quis_ is affixed by an officer of the

Arches on the door of Bow Church, and he then also makes three

proclamations for opposers to appear, &c.

SITTING. This posture is allowed in our Church at the reading of the

lessons in the Morning and Evening Prayer, and also of the first lesson

or Epistle in the Communion Service, but at no other time except during

the sermon. Even thus we have somewhat relaxed the rule of the primitive

Church, in which the people stood, even to hear sermons. Some

ultra-Protestant sects have irreverently used sitting as the posture of

receiving the LORD’S supper, which ought to be accounted the act of

deepest devotion. Some Arians in Poland have done this even for a worse

reason: i. e. to show that they do not believe CHRIST to be GOD, but

only their fellow-creature.

SOCIETIES. The Church itself is the proper channel for the circulation

of the Bible and Prayer Book, for the establishment of missions, and the

erection of sanctuaries; the Church acting under her bishops, and by her

representatives in synod. But, under the existing circumstances of the

Church of England, not only convocations, but diocesan synods have been

for many years suspended: had not this been the case, all our plans for

the circulation of the Scriptures, the institution of missions, and so

forth, would have been conducted by committees of the convocation, in

the name and by the avowed authority of the Church. At present we are

obliged to promote these great objects by means of voluntary

associations. A society, to be a Church society, must be confined

exclusively to members of the Church. If Dissenters are admitted to its

government, it is as much a Dissenting society as a Church society, i.

e. it ceases to be a Church society, strictly speaking, since by a

Church society we mean a society distinguished from a Dissenting

society. (See the article on _Schism_.)

But, admitting that we are to unite for religious purposes with

Churchmen only, are laymen by themselves, or laymen assisted by deacons

or presbyters, competent to organize a religious society? And on the

authority of the text, “Obey them that rule over you,” we give our

answer in the negative. There is in every Church, and every diocese of a

Church, a higher authority, to which presbyters, deacons, and laymen are

to defer: the archbishop of the province and all his suffragans, in

matters relating to the Church of the province generally; the diocesan,

in matters relating to a particular diocese. So the first Christians

always understood the passage to which we have referred. “Let no one,”

says Ignatius, the contemporary of the apostles and the disciple of St.

John, “do any of the things pertaining to the Church separately from the

bishop.” “Let presbyters and deacons,” say the Apostolic Canons,

“attempt nothing without the bishop’s allowance, for it is he to whom

the LORD’S people are committed.”—_Canon_ 39. Quotations might be

multiplied to the same effect.

We may here, then, discover another principle. In forming our

institutions we ought to have the episcopal sanction for what we do.

Indeed it seems ridiculous to call ourselves Episcopalians, and then to

act contrary to this law: though by the way, in the very first ages of

the Church, some there were who did so. “Some,” says St. Ignatius, the

disciple of St. John, to whom we have before alluded, “call him bishop,

and yet do all things without him; but these seem not to me to have a

good conscience, but rather to be hypocrites and scorners.” We ought not

to be surprised, therefore, at this inconsistency in our own age, when

even the apostolical times were not exempt from it. But here observe, it

is not the sanction of a bishop, or the sanction of two or three

bishops, that suffices, but the sanction of _the_ bishop, the diocesan.

A bishop may intrude into another man’s diocese, and thus violate the

canons of the Church, and be himself liable to canonical censures: his

example is rather to be avoided than followed. Yet it is necessary to

mention this, because some persons think that all must be right if they

obtain for a favourite society the names of one or two bishops, while

they set aside the authority of the diocesan, against whom, perhaps,

they are acting. This is in fact, when we come to examine the case,

rather a specious evasion than an observance of the system of the

Church, which would lead us to place every institution under the

government of the diocesan.

But bishops are only, like ourselves, fallible men; and therefore we are

not to suppose that the converse of this proposition must be true, that

because no society, except such as has the diocesan at its head, can be

worthy of a churchman’s support, therefore every society which _has_ a

diocesan’s sanction must have a claim upon each inhabitant of that

diocese. The Church defers to her bishops as the executive power, but

she does not regard them as irresponsible, or infallible, or despotic.

She does not intend that they should transgress Scripture, and lord it

over GOD’S heritage. To them, as well as us, the principles of the

Church are to be a guide; and they, like ourselves, may err occasionally

in the application of these principles. And in deciding whether a

society is conducted on Church principles, it is not to the diocesan,

but to the society itself, that we are to refer. And the question is,

not merely whether the diocesan belongs to it, but also whether the

society places the diocesan in his right position? We are to vindicate

the rights of the diocesan, even though the diocesan do himself neglect

them, for these rights pertain, not to him personally, but to the

Church. We are therefore to ascertain, whether he is recognised by the

society _as_ the diocesan, as the spiritual ruler presiding _of right_

over the society; so recognised as that, if he refused to sanction its

proceedings, it would retire from the field; whether it receives him out

of deference to his spiritual character, or only out of respect for his

temporal rank; where, as in this country, temporal rank, a circumstance

of minor consideration, not indeed worthy of notice, is conceded to him?

If the society does not do this, it is not one whit improved, so far as

its constitution is concerned, though a diocesan may peradventure be one

of its members. Here then we come to another principle, and we may sum

up what has been said, by asserting that a religious society, conducted

on strictly Church principles, should consist of churchmen only, and

should be under the superintendence, if instituted for general purposes,

of the archbishops, and all the bishops of both provinces of the Church

of England; if for diocesan purposes, of the diocesan; if for parochial

purposes, of the parochial clergy, who act as the bishop’s delegates.

SOCINIANS. (See _Unitarians_.) A sect of heretics, so called from their

founder, Faustus Socinus, a native of Sienna in Italy, born in 1539.

Their tenets are,

I. That the eternal FATHER was the one only GOD; that the WORD was no

more than an expression of the GODHEAD, and had not existed from all

eternity; and that JESUS CHRIST was GOD, no otherwise than by his

superiority above all creatures, who were put in subjection to him by

the FATHER.

II. That JESUS CHRIST was not a mediator between GOD and men, but sent

into the world to serve as a pattern of their conduct; and that he

ascended up to heaven only, as it were, to take a journey thither.

III. That the punishment of hell will last but for a certain time, after

which both body and soul will be destroyed. And,

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

These four tenets were what Socinus defended with the greatest zeal: in

other matters, he was a Lutheran, or a Calvinist. The truth is, he did

but refine upon the errors of all the Anti-Trinitarians who had gone

before him.

The Socinians spread extremely in Poland, Lithuania, and Transylvania.

Their chief school was at Racow, and there all their first books were

published. Their sentiments are explained at large in their catechism,

printed several times, under the title of _Catechesis Ecclesiarum

Polonicarum unum Deum patrem, illiusque filium unigenitum, uno cum

Sancto Spiritu, ex sacra scriptura confitentium_. They were exterminated

out of Poland in 1655; since which time they have been chiefly sheltered

in Holland; where, though their public meetings have been prohibited,

they find means to conceal themselves under the names of Arminians and

Anabaptists.

SOFFIT. The under-surface of an arch. In the nomenclature of mouldings,

the _soffit-plane_ is the plane at right angles with the face of the

wall, which is the direction of the soffit in its simplest form. Courses

of mouldings occupying the _soffit-plane_ and the _wall-plane_, to the

exclusion of the _chamfer-plane_, indicate Norman or Early English work.

SOLFIDIANS. Those who rest on faith alone for salvation, without any

connexion with works; or who judge themselves to be CHRIST’S because

they believe they are.

SOMPNOUR. (_Chaucer._) An officer employed to summon delinquents to

appear in ecclesiastical courts; now called an apparitor.

SON OF GOD. (See JESUS, LORD.) “The SON, which is the WORD of the

FATHER, begotten from everlasting of the FATHER, the very and eternal

GOD, and of one substance with the FATHER, took man’s nature in the womb

of the Blessed Virgin, of her substance; so that two whole and perfect

natures, that is to say, the GODHEAD and Manhood, were joined together

in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one CHRIST, very GOD and

very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to

reconcile his FATHER to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original

guilt, but also for actual sins of men.”—_Article_ II. He is the true,

proper, and only Son of GOD; begotten “from the beginning;” “before the

foundation of the world” (1 Pet. i. 20; 1 John i. 1); as he “came down

from heaven,” (John vi. 38,) where he had “glory with the FATHER,”

“before the world was” (John xvii. 5); as he is himself called GOD,

“one” with the “FATHER,” (John x. 30,) being of the same Divine essence

communicated to him, (Matt. xi. 27; John v. 26; xiii. 3; xvi. 15; Rom.

xiv. 9,) and exercising a power above that of all created beings. (Eph.

i. 21; Heb. i. 2, 13; 1 Pet. iii. 22.) By him the world and “all things

were made,” (John i. 3, 10; Col. i. 16; Heb. i. 2, 10,) “by whom are all

things,” (1 Cor. viii. 6,) for “He is before all things, and by him all

things consist.” (Col. i. 17.) “All things are put in subjection under

his feet,” and “nothing is left that is not put under him.” (Heb. ii. 8;

Ps. viii. 6; 1 Cor. xv. 27; Eph. i. 22.) Of the manner and nature of

this generation we are ignorant, and must not endeavour to be wise above

what is written. We find our LORD declared by prophecy to be a “son

begotten,” (Ps. ii. 7,) and acknowledged, by inspiration, as “the only

begotten SON.” (John iii. 16; i. 14; 1 John iv. 9.) That he is “the

image of the invisible GOD, the first-born of (or before) every

creature, for by him were all things created” (Col. i. 15, 16); and who

thus “being in the form of GOD,” “the brightness of his glory, and the

express image of his person,” (Heb. i. 3,) was without “robbery equal to

GOD.” (Phil. ii. 6.) That he “is in the bosom of the FATHER,” (John i.

18,) and is “one” with him. (John x. 30.) Many similes were imagined by

the ancients to elucidate this: as the sun producing light—a fountain

its streams, &c.; but too much caution cannot be used on this subject,

lest things are conceived or uttered by us derogatory to the ineffable

nature and peculiar attributes of the Divine majesty.

He was foretold in Scripture as “the SON of GOD,” (Luke i. 35,) and

acknowledged on earth—by men inspired (Matt. xvi. 16; John i. 34; xx.

31; Acts ix. 20);—by devils (Matt. viii. 29; Mark iii. 11; Luke iv.

41);—and by the world (Matt. xiv. 33; John i. 49; xi. 27,) as he shall

be in heaven (Rev. ii. 18). Therefore he addresses GOD as his “FATHER,”

(Mark xiv. 36, &c.,) and claims to himself the title from men, (John v.

18, 22–25; ix. 35 with 37,) though for this he was accused, by the Jews,

of blasphemy (John x. 36; xix. 7). He is the only SON, also, by reason

of his resurrection from the dead, there being none but him begotten by

such generation.

SONG. As applied to sacred subjects, it is one of the classes of vocal

praise mentioned in Scripture: according to the enumeration of the

apostle, (Eph. v. 19,) ψαλμοῖς, καὶ ὕμνοις, καὶ ψοαῖς πνευματικαῖς.

(Psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, or odes.) Wolfius, in his note

on Eph. v. 14, quotes an opinion of _Heumannus_, in his _Pœcile_, (ii.

lib. iii. frag. 390,) that this verse of the apostle’s, “Awake, thou

that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and CHRIST shall give thee

life,” is a fragment of an ancient Christian hymn or spiritual song: and

remarks that there is a natural rhythm in the original:

ἔγειραι ὁ καθεύσων,

καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν,

καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ χριστός.

However this may be, it is to be hoped that the recent discoveries of

early Christian hymns in the Syriac language may throw light on this

subject; and here Dr. Burgess’s late translation of the hymns of Ephrem

Syrus may be consulted with advantage. The Evening Hymn of the first or

second century, preserved by St. Basil, and given in _Routh’s Reliquiæ

Sacræ_, is an interesting illustration of the ancient Christian songs.

The word _song_ in the Old Testament is in the Hebrew _Shir_. Many of

the Psalms are so denominated: sometimes simply _Shir_, at other times

_Mizmor Shir_ (Psalm-Song), or _Shir Mizmor_ (Song-Psalm). It is not,

perhaps, possible to distinguish them in style or subject from other

Psalms. The word appears by comparison of different passages of

Scripture to mean anything sung to instrumental music, as these

instruments are called in Scripture instruments of _Shir_, i. e.

accompanying vocal music. See 2 Chron. v. 13.

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

SORTES. A method of divination borrowed by some superstitious Christians

from the heathen, and condemned by several councils. The heathen,

opening Virgil at hazard, took the first words they found as indicating

future events, and this process they called _Sortes Virgilianæ_. The

superstitious imitators of this custom used the Bible in the same way,

and called their divinations _Sortes sacræ_.

SOUTHCOTTIANS. The deluded followers of one Johanna Southcot, a servant

girl at Exeter, who, towards the close of the last century, gave herself

out as the woman in the wilderness, mentioned in the Apocalypse, and

declared that she held converse with spirits, good and bad, and with the

HOLY GHOST himself. She gave sealed papers, which were called her

“seals,” to her followers, which were to protect them from all evil of

this life and the next. In 1814, having fallen from indulgence and want

of exercise into a habit of body which gave her the appearance of

pregnancy, she announced herself the mother of the approaching Shiloh.

She died, however, and her body was opened, revealing the real cause of

her appearance; but her death and burial did not undeceive her

followers, though no resurrection of their leader has yet taken place.

SPANDRIL. The triangular portion of wall between two arches, or an arch

and the adjoining wall; or between the side of an arch and the square

panel in which it is set. The latter is a remarkable feature in

perpendicular doorways, being often richly ornamented with figures,

foliage, or heraldic shields.

SPIRE. The high pyramidal capping or roof of a tower. The earliest

spires still existing in England are Early English; and in this style,

as well as in the next, or Geometric, it is generally of the form called

a broach. In the Decorated, the broach and the parapetted spire occur

indifferently; in the Perpendicular, the latter almost exclusively,

though there is a large portion of Leicestershire and Northamptonshire

in which Perpendicular broaches are not uncommon. Many of our loftiest

spires were formerly of timber, covered with lead: such was the spire of

St. Paul’s cathedral, the highest in the kingdom; such is still the

remarkable twisted spire of Chesterfield. Several smaller spires of this

kind remain in the southern counties, but the perishableness of the

material has led to the destruction of by far the greater number of

them.

SPLAY. The slanting expansion inwards of windows, for the wider

diffusion of light. This is usually very great in Norman windows, where

the external aperture is small.

SPONSORS. In the administration of baptism, these have from time

immemorial held a distinguished and important place. Various titles have

been given them significative of the position they hold, and the duties

to which they are pledged. Thus they are called _sponsors_, because in

infant baptism they _respond_ or answer for the baptized. They are

_sureties_, in virtue of the security given through them to the Church,

that the baptized shall be “virtuously brought up to lead a godly and a

Christian life.” And from the spiritual affinity here created, by which

a responsibility almost parental is undertaken by the sureties, in the

future training of the baptized, the terms _godfather and godmother_

have taken their rise.

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

In the ancient Church they reckoned three sorts of sponsors: 1. For

children, who could not renounce, or profess, or answer for themselves.

2. For such adult persons, as by reason of sickness or infirmity were in

the same condition as children, incapable of answering for themselves.

3. For all adult persons in general.

The sponsors for children were obliged to answer to all the

interrogatories usually made in baptism, and then to be the guardians of

their Christian education. In most cases, parents were sponsors for

their own children; and the extraordinary cases in which they were

presented by others were such, where the parent could not or would not

perform that kind office for them; as when slaves were presented for

baptism by their masters; or children, whose parents were dead, were

brought by any charitable persons, who would take pity on them; or

children exposed by their parents, who were sometimes taken up by the

holy virgins of the Church, and by them presented unto baptism. In these

cases, where strangers became sureties for children, they were not

obliged, by virtue of their suretyship, to maintain them; but the Church

was charged with this care, and they were supported out of the common

stock. All that was required of such sponsors was, first, to answer to

the several interrogatories in baptism; and, secondly, to take care, by

good admonitions and instructions, that they performed their part of the

covenant they engaged in.

The second sort of sponsors were to answer for such adult persons as

were incapable of answering for themselves. These were such as were

suddenly struck speechless, or seized with a frenzy through the violence

of some distemper, and the like. And they might be baptized, if their

friends could testify that they had beforehand desired baptism. In which

case the same friends became sponsors for them, making the very same

answers for them that they did for children.

The third sort of sponsors were for such adult persons as were able to

answer for themselves; for these also had their sureties, and no persons

anciently were baptized without them. It was no part of the office of

these sponsors to answer to the interrogatories made in baptism: the

adult persons were to answer for themselves, according to that plain

sentence of the gospel, “He is of age, let him answer for himself.” The

only business of sponsors, in this case, was to be guardians of their

spiritual life, and to take care of their instruction and morals, both

before and after baptism. This office was chiefly imposed upon the

deacons for the men, and the deaconesses for the women.

Anciently, there was no prohibition of any sorts of men from performing

this charitable office; excepting only catechumens, energumens,

heretics, and penitents; that is, persons who as yet were never in full

communion with the Church, or such as had forfeited the privileges of

baptism and Church communion by their crimes or errors; such persons

being deemed incapable of assisting others, who stood in need of

assistance themselves. In the time of Charles the Great, the Council of

Mentz forbade fathers to be sponsors for their own children: and this

was the first prohibition of this sort.

It is observable, that anciently no more than one sponsor was required,

namely, a man for a man, and a woman for a woman. In the case of

infants, no regard was had to the difference of sex: for a virgin might

be sponsor for a male child, and a father for his children, whether male

or female. This practice was confirmed by the Council of Mentz, upon a

reason which is something peculiar: for they concluded, that, because

there is but one GOD, one faith, and one baptism, therefore an infant

ought to have but one sponsor.—_Bingham._

SQUINCH. More properly _Pendentive_. A small arch thrown across the

angle of a square tower, to receive one of the sides of an octagonal

spire or lantern. In broach spires the external slant over this arch is

also called a squinch.

STALLS. In a cathedral or collegiate church, and often in parish

churches, certain seats constructed for the clergy and other members of

the Church, and intended for their exclusive use. These stalls are

placed in that portion of the building called the _choir_, or the part

in which Divine service is usually performed.

In ancient times, all members of the cathedral, including lay clerks or

vicars, had their stalls: though the inferior members had not always

fixed stalls appropriated to each individual. Unless when the community

was very small, there was an upper and lower range of stalls, called the

_prima et secunda forma_, (or gradus,) the upper appropriated to the

canons or prebendaries, (and sometimes the priest vicars or minor

canons,) the lower to the other members. The designation of the

respective dignitaries and canons were written on their stalls; in some

few instances, those of the minor canons or priest vicars also. The

destruction of the ancient stalls, as at Canterbury, and of the lower

range of stalls, as in many places, is a barbarism much to be lamented.

The same word is also used to signify any benefice, which gives the

person holding it a seat, or stall, with the chapter, in a cathedral or

collegiate church.

STANDING. The posture enjoined by the Church at several parts of Divine

service, as, for instance, at the exhortation with which the service of

morning and evening commences, and at the ecclesiastical hymns. In the

primitive Church the sermon was listened to standing; and in some

churches the people stood praying on the LORD’S day, and during the

fifty days after Easter, because it was not then so fitting to look

downwards to the earth, as upwards to their risen and ascended Lord.

STATIONS. The weekly fasts of Wednesday and Friday. Not long after

Justin Martyr’s time, the Church observed the custom of meeting solemnly

for Divine worship on Wednesdays and Fridays, which days are commonly

called the _stationary days_, because they continued their assemblies on

those days to a great length, till three o’clock in the afternoon: for

which reason they had also the name of _semi-jejunia_, or half fasts, in

opposition to the Lent fasts, which always held till evening.—_Bingham._

_Station_, in the Romish Church, denotes certain churches in which

indulgences are granted on certain days. It is also a ceremony wherein

the clergy go out of the choir and sing before an image.

STEEPLE. The tower of a church with all its appendages, as turret,

octagon, and spire. It is often incorrectly confounded with the spire.

STEPHEN’S, ST., DAY. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on the

26th of December, in honour of the protomartyr, St. Stephen.

STIPENDIARIES. Members of collegiate choirs, who do not possess an

independent estate, but are paid stipends. At Christ Church in Dublin

there are both vicars choral and stipendiaries, the latter generally

succeeding to vacant vicarages. There were also formerly five

stipendiaries at Tuam; and four at the now ruined cathedral of

Enachdune.—_Harris’s Ware. Cotton’s Facti Eccl. Hib._

STOLE, or ORARIUM. A long and narrow scarf with fringed extremities,

that crossed the breast to the girdle, and thence descended in front on

both sides as low as the knees. The deacon wore it over the left

shoulder, and in the Latin Church joined under the right arm, but in the

Greek Church with its two extremities, one in front and the other

hanging down his back. The word ἄγιος was sometimes thrice embroidered

on it instead of crosses. It is one of the most ancient vestments used

by the Christian clergy, and in its mystical signification represented

the yoke of CHRIST.—_Palmer._

STOUP. A bason to receive holy water, often remaining in porches, or in

some other place near the entrance of the church, and towards the right

hand of a person entering.

SUBCHANTER. (See _Succentor_.)

SUBDEACONS. An inferior order of clergy in the Christian Church, so

called from their being employed in subordination to the deacons.

The first notice we have of this order in any writers, is about the

middle of the third century, when Cyprian lived, who speaks of

subdeacons as settled in the Church in his time. The author of the

“Constitutions” refers them to an apostolical institution, and brings in

St. Thomas the apostle, giving directions to bishops for their

ordination. But in this he is singular, it being the general opinion

that subdeacons are merely of ecclesiastical institution.

As to their office, it was to fit and prepare the sacred vessels and

utensils of the altar, and deliver them to the deacons in the time of

Divine service; but they were not allowed to minister as deacons at the

altar; no, not so much as to come within the rails of it, to set a paten

or cup, or the oblations of the people, thereon. Another of their

offices was, to attend the doors of the church during the Communion

Service. Besides which offices in the church, they had another out of

the church, which was, to carry the bishop’s letters or messages to

foreign Churches. As to their ordination, it was performed without

imposition of hands; and the ceremony consisted in their receiving an

empty paten and cup from the hands of the bishop, and an ewer and towel

from the archdeacon.

The singularity of the Church of Rome was remarkable in keeping to the

exact number of seven subdeacons; whereas in other Churches the number

was indefinite.

The employment of the subdeacons in the Romish Church is, to take care

of the holy vessels, to prepare and pour water upon the wine in the

chalice, to sing the Epistle at solemn masses, to bring and hold the

book of the Gospels to the deacon, to give it the priest to kiss, to

carry the cross in processions, and to receive the oblations of the

people. The bishop, when he confers the order of subdeacon, causes the

candidate to lay his hands on a cup and paten, both empty, saying to him

at the same time, “Videte cujus ministerium vobis traditur,” &c. “Take

care of the ministry which is committed to your charge, and present

yourself unto GOD in such a manner as may be agreeable to him.” After

which, the candidate lays his hand on the Epistles, and the bishop says,

“Receive this book, and the power of reading the Epistles in the holy

Church of GOD.” The person to be ordained must present himself clothed

in a white albe, and holding a lighted taper in his right hand. After

the litanies, &c., the bishop clothes him with the amict, saying,

“Accipe amictum, per quem designatur castigatio vocis,” that is,

“Receive the amict, which denotes the bridle of speech.” He then puts

the maniple on his left arm, telling him that it signifies the fruit of

good works; and clothes him with the dalmatica, letting him know that it

is the garment of joy.

The office of subdeacon does not subsist in the Church of England. It

is, however, mentioned in the statutes of Henry the Eighth’s

foundations, and is considered to be identical with _Epistoler_. The

four subdeacons at Hereford are lay clerks.—_Bingham._

SUBDEAN. An officer in cathedrals, who assists the dean in maintaining

the discipline of the Church. In some cathedrals of the old foundation

he was a permanent dignitary: in others, a minor canon or vicar choral,

and then his jurisdiction was merely over the inferior members. (See

_Vice Dean_.)

SUBINTRODUCTÆ. (See _Agapetæ_.)

SUBLAPSARIANS. Those who hold that GOD permitted the first man to fall

into transgression without absolutely predetermining his fall; or that

the decree of predestination regards man as fallen, by an abuse of that

freedom which Adam had, into a state in which all were to be left to

necessary and unavoidable ruin, who were not exempted from it by

predestination. (See _Supralapsarians_.)

SUBSTANCE. In relation to the GODHEAD, that which forms the Divine

essence or being—that in which the Divine attributes inhere. In the

language of the Church, and agreeably with holy writ, CHRIST is said to

be of the same _substance_ with the FATHER, being _begotten_, and

therefore partaking of the Divine essence; not _made_, as was the

opinion of some of the early heretics. (See _Homoousion_, _Person_, and

_Trinity_.)

SUCCENTOR. The precentor’s deputy in cathedral churches. Sometimes this

officer was a dignitary, as at York still and formerly at Glasgow,

Aberdeen, Paris, &c.; and at York he is called _Succentor Canonicorum_,

to distinguish him from the other subchanter, who is a vicar choral. In

most churches however the subchanter is a vicar or minor canon, as at

St. Paul’s, Hereford, Lichfield, St. Patrick’s, &c.

SUCCESSION, APOSTOLICAL, or UNINTERRUPTED. (See _Apostolical

Succession_.) The doctrine of a regular and continued transmission of

ministerial authority, in the succession of bishops, from the apostles

to any subsequent period. To understand this, it is necessary to

premise, that the powers of the ministry can only come from one

source—the great HEAD of the Church. By his immediate act the apostles

or first bishops were constituted, and they were empowered to send

others, as he had sent them. Here then was created the first link of a

chain which was destined to reach from CHRIST’S ascension to his second

coming to judge the world. And as the ordaining power was confined

exclusively to the apostles, (see _Episcopacy_,) no other men or

ministers could possibly exercise it: from them alone was to be obtained

the authority to feed and govern the Church of all future ages. By the

labours of the apostles, the Church rapidly spread through the then

known world, and with this there grew up a demand for an increase of

pastors. Accordingly, the apostles ordained elders or presbyters in all

churches; but the powers given to these terminated in themselves; they

could not communicate them to others. A few therefore were consecrated

to the same rank held by the apostles themselves, and to these the full

authority of the Christian ministry was committed, qualifying them to

ordain deacons and presbyters, and, when necessary, to impart their full

commission to others. Here was the second link of the chain. For

example: Paul and the other apostolic bishops were the first. Timothy,

Titus, and others, who succeeded to the same ministerial powers, formed

the second. A third series of bishops were in like manner ordained by

the second, as time advanced, and a fourth series by the third. And here

the reader will perceive what is meant by _uninterrupted succession_,

viz. a perfect and unbroken transmission of the original ministerial

commission from the apostles to their successors, by the progressive and

perpetual conveyance of their powers from one race of bishops to

another. The process thus established was faithfully carried on in every

branch of the universal Church. And as the validity of the ministry

depended altogether on the legitimacy of its derivation from the

apostles, infinite care was taken in the consecration of bishops, to see

that the ecclesiastical pedigree of their consecrators was regular and

indisputable. In case that any man broke in upon the apostolical

succession, by “climbing up some other way,” he was instantly deposed. A

great part of the ancient canons were made for regulating ordinations,

especially those of bishops, by providing that none should be ordained,

except in extraordinary cases, by less than three bishops of the same

province; that strange bishops should not be admitted to join with those

of the province on such occasions, but those only who were neighbours

and well known, and the validity of whose orders was not disputed. The

care thus taken in the early ages to preserve inviolate the succession

from the apostles, has been maintained in all Churches down to the

present day. There are in existence, catalogues of bishops from our own

time back to the day of Pentecost. These catalogues are proofs of the

importance always attached by the Church to a regular genealogy in her

bishops. And they, as well as the living bishops themselves, are proofs

of the reality of an apostolical succession. It has been well remarked,

that CHRIST JESUS has taken more abundant care to ascertain the

succession of pastors in his Church, than ever was taken in relation to

the Aaronical priesthood. For, in this case, the succession is

transmitted from seniors to juniors, by the most public and solemn

action, or rather series of actions, that is ever performed in a

Christian Church; an action done in the face of the sun, and attested by

great numbers of the most authentic witnesses, as consecrations always

were. And we presume it cannot bear any dispute, but that it is now more

easily to be proved that the archbishop of Canterbury was canonically

ordained, than that any person now living is the son of him who is

called his father; and that the same might have been said of any

archbishop or bishop that ever sat in that or any other episcopal see,

during the time of his being bishop.

Such then is uninterrupted succession; a fact to which every bishop,

priest, and deacon, in the wide world, looks as the ground of validity

in his orders. Without this, all distinction between a clergyman and a

layman is utterly vain, for no security exists that heaven will ratify

the acts of an illegally constituted minister on earth. Without it,

ordination confers none but humanly derived powers.

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

The succession of Canterbury from Augustine, A. D. 597, to Tillotson,

1691, includes seventy-nine archbishops, giving each an average reign of

less than fourteen years. The view in which some persons, opposed to the

indispensability of the apostolic succession, try to place it—as a

single chain of single links, from some one single apostle, of which one

link, wanting or broken, breaks the succession—if very contrary to the

facts to be illustrated, is yet very original. Grant each apostle to

have founded twenty churches, here are at least, _ab origine_, two

hundred and forty successions apostolically commenced. Considering how

these have reproduced themselves a thousand-fold, and that each

episcopal link succeeded the last as publicly as kings their

predecessors, the “one chain” is not a very fortunate comparison.

SUFFRAGANS. The word properly signifies all the provincial bishops who

are under a metropolitan, and they are called his suffragans, because he

has power to call them to his provincial synods to give their

_suffrages_ there.

The name is also used to denote a class resembling the _chorepiscopi_,

or country bishops, of the ancient Church. (See _Chorepiscopus_.)

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

c. 14, an act passed to restore this order of men under the name of

_suffragan bishops_. The preamble recites, that good laws had been made

for electing and consecrating archbishops and bishops, but no provision

was made for suffragans, which had been accustomed here for the more

speedy administration of the sacraments, and other devout things, &c.;

therefore it was enacted that the places following should be the sees of

bishops suffragans: Bedford, Berwick, Bridgewater, Bristol, Cambridge,

Colchester, Dover, St. Germain, Guildford, Gloucester, Grantham, Hull,

Huntingdon, Isle of Wight, Ipswich, Leicester, Marlborough, Moulton,

Nottingham, Penrith, Southampton, Shaftesbury, Shrewsbury, Taunton,

Thetford. The bishop of each diocese shall by petition present two

persons to the king, whereof he shall allow one to be the suffragan, and

thereupon direct his mandate to the archbishop to consecrate him, which

was to be done after this manner: first it recites that the bishop,

having informed the king that he wanted a suffragan, had therefore

presented two persons to him who were qualified for that office, praying

that the king would nominate one of them; thereupon he nominated P. S.,

being one of the persons presented, to be suffragan of the see of

Ipswich, requiring the archbishop to consecrate him. The bishop thus

consecrated was to have no greater authority than what was limited to

him by commission from the bishop of the diocese, and was to last no

longer. This act was repealed by 1 & 2 Philip & Mary, cap. 8; but it was

revived by 1 Elizabeth, and during the reign of that sovereign we find

notices of suffragans at Dover and elsewhere. Bishop Gibson mentions Dr.

Stean, suffragan of Colchester about 1606, as among the last of these

suffragans. But, although the law has not been acted on in later times,

it is still unrepealed.

SUFFRAGE. A vote, token of assent and approbation, or, as in public

worship, the united voice and consent of the people in the petitions

offered.

The term is also used in the Prayer Book to designate a short form of

petition, as in the Litany. Thus, in the Order for the Consecration of

Bishops, we read that in the Litany as then used, after the words, “That

it may please thee to illuminate all bishops,” &c., the proper

_suffrage_ shall be, “That it may please thee to bless this our brother

elected,” &c. The versicles immediately after the creed, in Morning and

Evening Prayer, are also denominated suffrages, as in the instance

quoted by Johnson, “The _suffrages_ next after the creed shall stand

thus. _Common Prayer, Form of Thanksgiving for May 29._” (See

_Versicle_.)

The Litany in “the Ordering of Deacons” is headed _the Litany and

Suffrages_. By suffrages here seems to be meant the latter part of the

Litany, called the supplication. (See Wheatly in loc. and

_Supplications_.) In some old choral books these are called the _second

suffrages_.

SUNDAY. (See _Lord’s Day_.) The ancients retained the name Sunday, or

_Dies Solis_, in compliance with the ordinary forms of speech; the first

day of the week being so called by the Romans, because it was dedicated

to the worship of the sun. Thus Justin Martyr, describing the worship of

the Christians, speaks of the day which is called _that of the sun_.

Besides the most solemn parts of Christian worship, which were always

performed on Sundays, this day was distinguished by a peculiar reverence

and respect expressed towards it in the observation of some special laws

and customs. Among these we may reckon, in the first place, those

imperial laws, which suspended all proceedings at law on this day,

excepting only such as were of absolute necessity, or eminent charity,

such as the manumission of slaves, and the like. This was the same

respect that the old Roman laws paid to the heathen festivals, which

were exempted from all other juridical business, except in cases of

necessity or charity. Neither was it only business of the law, but all

secular and servile employments that were superseded on this day, still

excepting acts of necessity and mercy. Constantine, indeed, allowed

works of husbandry, as earing and harvest, to be done on Sundays: but

this permission was never well approved of by the Church, which

endeavoured to observe a just medium in the observation of the LORD’S

day, neither indulging Christians in unnecessary works on that day, nor

wholly restraining them from working, if a great occasion required it.

Another thing which the Christian laws took care of, to secure the

honour and dignity of the LORD’S day, was, that no ludicrous sports or

games should be followed on this day. There are two famous laws of the

two Theodosiuses to this purpose, expressly forbidding the exercises of

gladiators, stage-plays, and horse-races in the circus, to be exhibited

to the Christians. And by the ecclesiastical laws, these sorts of

diversions were universally forbidden to all Christians, on account of

the extravagances and blasphemies that were committed in them. But all

such recreations and refreshments, as tended to the preservation or

conveniency of the life of man, were allowed on the LORD’S day. And

therefore Sunday was always a day of feasting, and it was never

allowable to fast thereon, not even in Lent.