female companion, whom he is said to have declared to be the first idea,
or conception, which he, as God, put forth from his mind. By another
mental process, in which this first idea was a partner, he produced the
angels, and they created the world. All this was highly mystical, and
writers have had recourse to different allegories, by which the
absurdity may be explained. That Simon never identified a real living
person with an idea emanating from the mind of God, may, I think, be
assumed as certain. But we see, in this story, evident traces of the
Gnostic doctrines. Valentinus, in the second century, made the first
cause, or Bythus, act upon Σιγὴ, or Ἐννοία, that is, upon his own mind,
and produce the first pair of æons. This then was the doctrine of Simon:
the supreme God, by a mental process, produced different orders of
angels, and they created the world. It was this same God, whose first or
principal power resided in Simon Magus. But when later writers had said
that he actually proclaimed himself as God, it followed that it was he,
who, by an operation of his own mind, produced the angels. If I have
argued rightly, I have freed the doctrine of Simon Magus from some of
its impieties; but there is still much which is absurd, and much which
is impious; for he believed that the world was created, not by the
supreme God, but by inferior beings: he taught also, that Christ was one
of those successive generations of æons which were derived from God; not
the æon which created the world; but he was sent from God to rescue
mankind from the tyranny of the demiurgus, or creative æon. Simon was
also inventor of the strange notion, that the Jesus who was said to be
born and crucified had not a material body, but was only a phantom. His
other doctrines were, that the writers of the Old Testament were not
inspired by the supreme God, the Fountain of good, but by those inferior
beings who created the world, and who were the authors of evil. He
denied a general resurrection; and the lives of himself and his
followers are said to have been a continued course of impure and vicious
conduct.
Such was the doctrine and the practice of Simon Magus, from whom all the
pseudo-Christian or Gnostic heresies were said to be derived. Simon
himself seems to have been one of those Jews who, as we learn from the
Acts of the Apostles, travelled about the country, exorcising evil
spirits. But he was also a man of speculative mind; and, having studied
the doctrines of Plato, he entered into the questions which were then so
commonly agitated, concerning the eternity of matter, and the origin of
evil. Hence we find him embracing the opinion, that the world was
created by angels, who were themselves produced from God. This was a
corrupted Platonism. Plato imagined that the ideas which were in the
mind of the Deity created intellectual beings: Simon taught that the
supreme God by an operation of his own mind produced the angels. The
first intelligences of Plato were employed by God to create the world:
Simon also taught that the angels, or æons, created the world; but in
one respect the Gnostics had totally changed the philosophy of Plato;
for they taught that the angel, or angels, who created the world, acted
contrary to the wishes of the supreme God.
SIN, the transgression of the law, or want of conformity to the will of
God, 1 John iii, 4. Original sin is that whereby our whole nature is
corrupted, and rendered contrary to the nature and law of God; or,
according to the ninth article of the church of England, “It is that
whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is, of his
own nature, inclined to evil.” This is sometimes called, “indwelling
sin,” Rom. vii. The imputation of the sin of Adam to his posterity, is
also what divines call, with some latitude of expression, original sin.
Actual sin is a direct violation of God’s law, and generally applied to
those who are capable of committing moral evil; as opposed to idiots or
children, who have not the right use of their powers. Sins of omission
consist in leaving those things undone which ought to be done. Sins of
commission are those which are committed against affirmative precepts,
or doing what should not be done. Sins of infirmity are those which
arise from ignorance, surprise, &c. Secret sins are those committed in
secret, or those of which, through blindness or prejudice, we do not see
the evil, Psalm xix, 7–12. Presumptuous sins are those which are done
boldly against light and conviction. The unpardonable sin is, according
to some, the ascribing to the devil the miracles which Christ wrought by
the power of the Holy Ghost. This sin, or blasphemy, as it should rather
be called, many scribes and Pharisees were guilty of, who, beholding our
Lord do his miracles, affirmed that he wrought them by Beelzebub, the
prince of devils, which was, in effect, calling the Holy Ghost Satan, a
most horrible blasphemy; and, as on this ground they rejected Christ,
and salvation by him, their sin could certainly have no forgiveness,
Mark iii, 22–30. No one therefore could be guilty of this blasphemy,
except those who were spectators of Christ’s miracles. There is,
however, another view of this unpardonable offence, which deserves
consideration: The sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, says Bishop
Tomline, is mentioned in the first three Gospels. It appears that all
the three evangelists agree in representing the sin or blasphemy against
the Holy Ghost as a crime which would not be forgiven; but no one of
them affirms that those who had ascribed Christ’s power of casting out
devils to Beelzebub, had been guilty of that sin, and in St. Luke it is
not mentioned that any such charge had been made. Our Saviour, according
to the account in St. Matthew and St. Mark, endeavoured to convince the
Jews of their error; but so far from accusing them of having committed
an unpardonable sin in what they had said concerning him, he declares
that “whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be
forgiven him;” that is, whatever reproaches men may utter against the
Son of man during his ministry, however they may calumniate the
authority upon which he acts, it is still possible that hereafter they
may repent and believe, and all their sins may be forgiven them; but the
reviling of the Holy Ghost is described as an offence of a far more
heinous nature: “The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be
forgiven unto men.” “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath
never forgiveness.” “Unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it
shall not be forgiven.” It is plain that this sin against the Holy Ghost
could not be committed while our Saviour was upon earth, since he always
speaks of the Holy Ghost as not being to come till after his ascension
into heaven. A few days after that great event, the descent of the Holy
Ghost enabled the Apostles to work miracles, and communicated to them a
variety of other supernatural gifts. If men should ascribe these powers
to Beelzebub, or in any respect reject their authority, they would
blaspheme the Holy Ghost, from whom they were derived; and that sin
would be unpardonable, because this was the completion of the evidence
of the divine authority of Christ and his religion; and they who
rejected these last means of conviction, could have no other opportunity
of being brought to faith in Christ, the only appointed condition of
pardon and forgiveness. The greater heinousness of the sin of these men
would consist in their rejecting a greater body of testimony; for they
are supposed to be acquainted with the resurrection of our Saviour from
the dead, with his ascension into heaven, with the miraculous descent of
the Holy Ghost, and with the supernatural powers which it communicated;
circumstances, all of which were enforced by the Apostles when they
preached the Gospel; but none of which could be known to those who
refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah during his actual ministry.
Though this was a great sin, it was not an unpardonable one, it might be
remedied by subsequent belief, by yielding to subsequent testimony. But,
on the other hand, they who finally rejected the accumulated and
complete evidence of Jesus being the Messiah, as exhibited by the
inspired Apostles, precluded themselves from the possibility of
conviction, because no farther testimony would be afforded them, and
consequently, there being no means of repentance, they would be
incapable of forgiveness and redemption. Hence it appears that the sin
against the Holy Ghost consisted in finally rejecting the Gospel as
preached by the Apostles, who confirmed the truth of the doctrine which
they taught “by signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of the
Holy Ghost,” Heb. ii, 4. It was unpardonable, because this was the
consummation of the proofs afforded to the men of that generation of the
divine mission of Christ. This sin was manifestly distinct from all
other sins; it indicated an invincible obstinacy of mind, an impious and
unalterable determination to refuse the offered mercy of God. It would
appear from this, that those only committed or could commit this
irremissible offence, who were witnesses of the mighty works wrought by
the Holy Spirit in the Apostles after Christ’s ascension and the day of
pentecost. Our Lord’s declaration appears chiefly to respect the Jews.
This view will serve to explain those passages in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, in which the hopeless case of Jewish apostates is described.
But see BLASPHEMY.
SIN, DESERT OF. To this the tenth station the Israelites came exactly a
month after they left Egypt. And here again they murmured for “the bread
and the flesh-pots of Egypt.” So the Lord gave them quails for a day,
and manna for forty years, till they came to the borders of Canaan. On
this occasion the institution of the Sabbath was revived, as a day of
rest, which had been intermitted during their Egyptian bondage. On this
day there fell no manna, but on the preceding they were directed to
gather two days’ provision. To perpetuate the memorial of “this bread
from heaven” to future generations, a pot of manna, which was preserved
fresh, by a standing miracle, was ordered to be laid up beside the ark
of the covenant, in the sanctuary, Exod. xvi.
SINAI, a famous mountain of Arabia Petræa, on which God gave the law to
Moses, Exod. xix, 1; xxiv, 16; xxxi, 18; xxxiv, 2, 4, &c; Lev. xxv, 1;
xxvi, 46. It stands in a kind of peninsula, formed by the two arms of
the Red Sea; one extending north, called the Gulf of Kolsom; the other
extending east, called the Gulf of Elan. The Arabs call Mount Sinai by
the name of Tor, that is, the mountain, by way of excellence; or Gibel
Mousa, “the mountain of Moses.” It is two hundred and sixty miles from
Cairo, which is a journey of ten days. The wilderness of Sinai, where
the Israelites continued encamped almost a year, and where Moses erected
the tabernacle of the covenant, is considerably elevated above the rest
of the country; the ascent to it is very craggy, the greater part cut
out of the rock; then one comes to a large space of ground, which is a
plain surrounded on all sides by rocks and eminences, whose length is
nearly twelve miles. Toward the extremity of this plain, on the north,
two high mountains appear; the highest is called Sinai, the other Horeb.
They are of very steep ascent, and do not stand on much ground in
comparison to their extraordinary height. Sinai is at least one third
part higher than the other, and its ascent more upright and difficult.
The top of the mountain terminates in an uneven and rugged space, which
might contain about sixty persons. On this eminence is built a little
chapel, called St. Catherine’s, where it is thought the body of this
saint rested for three hundred and sixty years; but afterward it was
removed into a church at the foot of the mountain. Near this chapel
issues a fountain of very good fresh water; it is looked upon as
miraculous, it not being conceivable how water can flow from the brow of
so high and so barren a mountain. Mount Horeb stands west of Sinai; so
that at sun-rising the shadow of Sinai covers Horeb. Beside the little
fountain at the top of Sinai, there is another at the foot of Horeb,
which supplies the monastery of St. Catherine. Five or six paces from
thence they show a stone, whose height is four or five feet, and breadth
about three, which they say is the very stone from whence Moses caused
the water to gush out. Its colour is of a spotted grey; and it is, as it
were, set in a kind of earth, where no other rock appears. This stone
has twelve holes or channels, which are about a foot wide, from whence
they say the water issued which the Israelites drank.
“Sinai,” says Sandys, “has three tops of a marvellous height; that on
the west side, where God appeared to Moses in a bush, fruitful in
pasturage, far lower than the middlemost, and shadowed when the sun
riseth thereon; which is that whereon God gave the law to Moses, and
which is now called the Mount of Moses, at the foot of which stands the
monastery called St. Catherine’s, from which there were steps formerly
up to the very top of the mountain, and were computed fourteen thousand
in number. At present some of them are broken, but those that remain are
well made, and easy to go up and down. There are, in several places of
the ascent, good cisterns; and especially near the top, a fair and good
one. The third or most easterly summit is called by the religious in
those parts, Mount Catherine; on the top of which there is a dome, under
which they say was interred the body of this saint, brought thither by
angels after she was beheaded at Alexandria.” One may judge of the
height of St. Catherine’s Mount, which certainly is not so high as that
of Moses by a third part, from this circumstance, that Thevenot found
much snow on both when he was there, which was in February. The
monastery of St. Catherine is from Cairo some eight days’ journey over
the deserts.
SION, or ZION, MOUNT, a mount or hill on the south of Old Jerusalem or
Salem, and higher than that on which the ancient city stood. This hill
was, perhaps, on this account, made choice of by the Jebusites for
building a fort or citadel upon; which fort was taken by David, who
transferred his court thither from Hebron, and brought the ark of the
Lord and set it in a tabernacle or tent pitched for it. On this account
it is, that this hill is so frequently styled in the Psalms the “holy
hill;” and, by way of excellence, is used in the poetical language of
Scripture to denote the whole city of Jerusalem. Here David built a
palace, and a city, called after him the city of David; and which
subsequently formed a part of Jerusalem, enclosed within the same walls,
although a great part of the hill is now left without them; while, on
the contrary, Calvary, which is supposed to have stood formerly without
the walls, is now enclosed within them, the city having drawn itself
round about this sacred mount. “This hill,” says M. Chateaubriand, “is
of a yellowish colour, and barren appearance; open in form of a
crescent, toward Jerusalem; and is about as high as Montmartre at Paris,
but rounder at the top. This sacred summit is distinguished by three
monuments, or, more properly, by three ruins, the house of Caiaphas, the
place where Christ celebrated his last supper, and the tomb or palace of
David. From the top of the hill you see, to the south, the valley of Ben
Hinnom; beyond this, the field of blood, purchased with the thirty
pieces of silver given to Judas; the hill of Evil Counsel, the tombs of
the judges, and the whole desert toward Hebron and Bethlehem. To the
north, the wall of Jerusalem, which passes over the top of Sion,
intercepts the view of the city, the site of which gradually slopes
toward the Valley of Jehoshaphat.”
Dr. Richardson observes of Sion, “At the time when I visited this sacred
ground, one part of it supported a crop of barley, another was
undergoing the labour of the plough, and the soil turned up consisted of
stones and lime mixed with earth, such as is usually met with in the
foundations of ruined cities. It is nearly a mile in circumference, is
highest on the west side, and toward the east falls down in broad
terraces on the upper part of the mountain, and narrow ones on the side
as it slopes down toward the brook Kedron. Each terrace is divided from
the one above it by a low wall of dry stone, built of the ruins of this
celebrated spot. The terraces near the bottom of the hill are used as
gardens, and are watered from the pool of Siloam. We have here another
remarkable instance of the special fulfilment of prophecy. ‘Therefore
shall Zion for your sakes be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem shall
become heaps,’ Micah iii, 12.” Mr. Jolliffe represents the hill of Sion
as not more raised above the city than the Aventine hill above the Roman
forum; but conjectures that its height, from its base in the Valley of
Gehinnon, from which it rises abruptly, may be equivalent to some of the
lowest hills which encompass Bath; that is, if the estimate be correct,
about three hundred and sixty feet, which is the height of the lowest of
the hills above that city.
SISTER, in the style of the Hebrews, has equal latitude as brother. It
is used not only for a sister by natural relation from the same father
and mother, but also for a sister only by the same father or by the same
mother, or a near relation only. Sarah is called sister to Abraham, Gen.
xii, 13; xx, 12, though only his niece according to some, or sister by
the father’s side according to others. In the law, Lev. xviii, 18, it is
forbidden to take to wife the sister of a wife; to marry two sisters;
or, according to some interpreters, to marry a second wife, having one
already. Literally, “Thou shalt not take a wife over her sister to
afflict her;” as if meaning to forbid polygamy. In the Gospels, the
brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ are his cousins, children of the
sisters of the holy virgin, Matt. xiii, 56; Mark vi, 3.
SLAVE. See SERVANT.
SLEEP, SLEEPING, SLUMBERING, is taken either for the sleep or repose of
the body; or for the sleep of the soul, which is supineness, indolence,
stupidity; or for the sleep of death. “You shall sleep with your
fathers;” you shall die, as they are dead. Jeremiah, li, 39, threatens
Babylon, in the name of the Lord, with a perpetual sleep, out of which
they shall not awake. Daniel, xii, 2, speaks of those that sleep in the
dust of the grave. “Lazarus our friend sleepeth; let us go and awake
him,” John xi, 11; he is dead, let us go and raise him up. “Awake, thou
that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee
light,” Eph. v, 14. Here St. Paul speaks to those that were dead in sin
and infidelity. St. Peter says of the wicked, “Their damnation
slumbereth not,” 2 Peter ii, 3. God is not asleep, he will not forget to
punish them in his own due time. Isaiah, lxv, 4, speaks of a
superstitious practice among the Pagans, who went to sleep in the
temples of their idols, to obtain prophetic dreams: “They remain among
the graves, and lodge in the monuments.” The word, which we translate
“monuments,” signifies places “kept” or “observed.” Some interpret it of
idol temples, some of caves and dens, in which the Heathens used to
worship their idols; and some of tombs or monuments for dead persons.
Thus also the superstitious and idolatrous Jews, in contempt of the
prophets, and of the temple of the Lord, went into the tombs and temples
of idols to sleep there, and to have dreams that might discover future
events to them. The Pagans for this purpose used to lie upon the skins
of the sacrificed victims.
SLINGS. See ARMS.
SMYRNA, a city of Asia Minor, and one of the finest in all the Levant.
It contended for the honour of giving birth to Homer, and its title is
by many thought to be the best founded. The Christian church in Smyrna
was one of the seven churches of Asia to which the Apostle John was
commanded to address an epistle, Rev. ii, 8–10. The present Smyrna,
which the Turks call Esmir, is about four miles in circumference, and
contains a population of about a hundred thousand souls. It is less
remarkable for the elegance of its buildings than for the beauty of its
situation, the extent of its commerce, and the riches of its
inhabitants.
SOCINIANS, a sect so called from Faustus Socinus, who died in Poland in
1604. This celebrated man was born in Tuscany, and was descended from an
ancient and noble family. In the earlier period of his life he devoted
little time to literary acquisitions, but he was possessed of a vigorous
understanding, and of that steady fortitude which qualified him for the
memorable part which he afterward acted. His connection with his uncle
Lælius probably gave a bias to his mind with respect to religion. He
warmly embraced his tenets, and he spent a great part of his days in
studying and disseminating them. Having left his native country, he
visited Poland; and finally he settled in it for the express purpose of
propagating his own peculiar views of religious truth. The fundamental
principles which he assumed were, the rejection of all mystery from
revelation, and the necessity of trying its doctrines by the light of
reason; and he rigorously applied this latter maxim in conducting his
theological investigations. He inculcated in the strictest sense, the
unity of God; considered the Word and the Holy Ghost as attributes of
the supreme Being; taught that Christ was a man peculiarly honoured by
the Almighty, having been born through the operation of the Spirit; and
that he was so highly exalted, in consequence of his office as the
Saviour of the world, that he might be styled the Son of God, and ought
to be worshipped. Struck with several declarations of our Lord which
seemed to imply that he had descended from heaven, and which militated
against his leading tenet respecting Jesus, he endeavoured to evade the
application of them, by supposing or affirming that, previous to the
commencement of our Saviour’s ministry, he had, through the power of
God, been taken up to the celestial regions, and had in them received
from the Almighty the truths which he was commissioned to reveal.
The first reception of Socinus in Poland, even by those who might have
been expected to welcome him, was most discouraging. The Unitarian
churches which had been previously established in that kingdom,
differing from him in several points, would not admit him into their
communion; and he had to encounter the enmity of the great majority of
Christians, who abhorred his tenets, and branded them as impious. But,
notwithstanding all this, and although he was visited with much
suffering and affliction, his perseverance, his talents, and his zeal
soon excited admiration; his views were adopted by many even in the
highest stations of life; his principles were embodied in a catechism,
which, though not imposed upon his followers, they read with very
extensive acquiescence; and he had the satisfaction of beholding the
sentiments which he had long cherished, embraced by various churches
enjoying the protection of government, and permitted to establish
seminaries of education by which the impression made on the public mind
might be preserved and deepened. There was not, however, perfect
unanimity of faith among all his associates who united in denying the
divinity of our Lord. Vast numbers of these, previous to their having
perused the papers of Lælius Socinus, had so far received the system of
Arianism, that they believed Christ to have existed before he entered
into the world; and although many, in consequence of the reasonings and
representations of Socinus, abandoned this doctrine, it was retained by
some, who, from their leader, were called Farnovians. Socinus conducted
himself toward these men with admirable address. Fully aware that the
tendency of their having departed so far from the orthodox tenets was to
lead them to still farther recession, and sensible that his own system
naturally and consequentially resulted from what they readily admitted,
he used every method to conciliate them, and he permitted them to remain
with his followers, upon condition of their not openly insisting on the
preëxistence of Christ. They did, however, at length separate from the
great body of his adherents; but they gradually approached nearer and
nearer to them, and, upon the death of Farnovius, most of them
incorporated themselves with the Socinians, and all trace of them as a
distinct party was obliterated.