Chapter LXVII: Act 46: , Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, King James VI., do (43)

SAMARITANS. These were a mixed people, inhabiting the parts of Palestine between Galilee and Judea. They were in part descended from the remnant of the ten tribes, most of whom had been carried away by the Assyrians, blended with other distant nations, and settled in the same district with their conquerors. These different people, Babylonians, Cutheans, and other idolaters, for some time retained their respective forms of worship; but finding the country ravaged by wild beasts, they thought to propitiate the god of the country by restoring his worship; and one of the priests, whom they had carried away from Samaria, came and “dwelt at Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the LORD.” (2 Kings xvii. 28.) After this, they were delivered from the plague of wild beasts, and embraced the law of Moses, with which they mixed a great part of their ancient idolatry. Upon the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, it appears that they had entirely quitted the worship of their idols. But though they were united in religion, they were not so in affection, with the Jews; for they employed various calumnies and stratagems to hinder their rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem; and when they could not prevail; they erected a temple on Mount Gerizim, in opposition to that of Jerusalem. (Ezra iv., v., vi.) The Samaritans at present are few in number, but pretend to great strictness in their observation of the law of Moses. They are said to be scattered, some at Damascus, some at Gaza, and some at Grand Cairo in Egypt.

SAMUEL, THE BOOKS OF. Two canonical books of the Old Testament, so called, because they are usually ascribed to the prophet Samuel.

These two books are styled _Reigns_ in the Greek version, and in the vulgar Latin, _Kings_; but in the Hebrew they are styled the Books of Samuel. But, since the first twenty-four chapters contain all that relates to the history of Samuel, and that the latter part of the First Book, and all the Second, include the relation of events that happened after the death of that prophet, it has been supposed that Samuel was author only of the first twenty-four chapters, and that the prophets Gad and Nathan finished the work. This is the opinion of the Talmudists, founded upon the following text of the Chronicles: “Now the acts of David, first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer.”

The Books of Samuel and the Books of Kings are a continued history of the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah; for which reason, the Books of Samuel are likewise styled the First and Second Books of Kings; and the two Books of Kings are also called the Third and Fourth Books of Kings.

The First Book of Samuel, otherwise called the First Book of Kings, comprehends the transactions under the government of Eli and Samuel, and under Saul the first king; as also the acts of David whilst he lived under Saul; and is supposed to include the space of about 101 years. Here we read, how the republic of Israel was changed into a monarchy, and what great evils they suffered in consequence thereof. We have here an account of the deposition of their first king, Saul, on account of his profane sacrificing, and his wilful disobedience to the commands of GOD, in relation to the destruction of the Amalekites; his treachery to David, and cruel pursuits of him; and, lastly, the tragical death of himself, and his son Jonathan, on Mount Gilboa.

The Second Book of Samuel, otherwise called the Second Book of Kings, contains the history of about forty years, and is wholly spent in relating the transactions of King David’s reign; the military exploits of that prince, and his administration both of the Church and of the State. With these are mixed the great failings and miscarriages of David, and, in consequence thereof, the many distresses he met with, and the various judgments and plagues inflicted upon him and his people by GOD.

SANCTE BELL. A small bell which was rung when the “_Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus, Deus Sabaoth_” was said, to prepare the people for the elevation of the host.

Mr. Todd, in his additions to Johnson’s Dictionary, quotes from Warton’s History of Kiddington, as follows: “It was usually placed where it might be heard farthest, in a lantern at the springing of the steeple, or in a turret at the angle of the tower; and sometimes, for the convenience of its being more readily and exactly rung, within a pediment, or arcade, between the church and the chancel; the rope, in this situation, falling down into the choir, not far from the altar.” Thus in Walton’s Life of George Herbert: “And some of the meaner sort of his parish did so love and reverence Mr. Herbert, that they would let their plough rest when Mr. Herbert’s _Saints’ bell_ rung to prayers, that they might also offer their devotions to God with him; and would then return back to their plough.” The small bell at Canterbury rung before service, is hung high in the central tower, and seems to answer to the ancient Saints’ bell. Mr. Todd adds, that “the little bell, which now rings immediately before the service begins, is corruptly called, in many places, _Saucebell_, or _Sauncebell_.”

SANCTIFICATION. (See _Justification_.) The progressive conformity of the heart and life to the will of GOD, or our inherent righteousness, as distinguished from the righteousness of justification. To say that we detract from the necessity of inherent righteousness, or what is called the righteousness of sanctification, because we exclude it from the office of justification, and thus demolish the whole fabric of human merit, is about as reasonable as to say, that because we receive food by the mouth, and not by the ear or the eye, the eye and the ear are unnecessary members in the human frame, and that no other bodily functions are requisite to the life of man. The man will die if, by tetanus, he is unable to open his mouth; but he will also die if, having received food into his mouth, he is unable to digest it; and yet the digestion of food, and its mastication, are processes entirely distinct, while the food itself is a gift from without. It is one thing to assert that a Christian must have inherent righteousness, and another to assert that his inherent righteousness is the ground of his acceptance with a righteous GOD.

We may refer to Hooker for a clear exposition of the case: “Concerning the righteousness of sanctification, we deny it not to be inherent; we grant that, unless we work, we have it not; only we distinguish it as a thing different in nature from the righteousness of justification: we are righteous the one way, by the _faith_ of Abraham; the other way, except we do the _works_ of Abraham, we are _not_ righteous. Of the one, St. Paul, ‘To him that worketh not, but believeth, faith is counted for righteousness.’ Of the other, St. John, ‘He is righteous which worketh righteousness.’ Of the one, St. Paul doth prove by Abraham’s example, that we have it of faith without works. Of the other, St. James, by Abraham’s example, that by works we have it, and not only by faith.

“St. Paul doth plainly sever these two parts of Christian righteousness one from the other. For in the sixth to the Romans thus he writeth: _Being freed from sin, and made servants to God, ye have your fruit in holiness, and the end everlasting life._

“‘Ye are made free from sin, and made servants unto GOD;’ this is the righteousness of justification.

“‘Ye have your fruit in holiness;’ this is the righteousness of sanctification.

“By the one we are interested in the right of inheriting; by the other we are brought to the actual possession of eternal bliss; and so the end of both is everlasting life.”

In another passage of the same discourse Hooker says: “It is a childish cavil wherewith, in the matter of justification, our adversaries do so greatly please themselves, exclaiming, that we tread all Christian virtues under our feet, and require nothing in Christians but faith; because we teach that faith alone justifieth: whereas, by this speech, we never meant to exclude either hope or charity from being always joined as inseparable mates with faith in the man that is justified; or works from being added as necessary duties, required at the hands of every justified man: but to show that faith is the only hand which putteth on CHRIST unto justification; and CHRIST the only garment, which, being so put on, covereth the shame of our defiled natures, hideth the imperfection of our works, preserveth us blameless in the sight of GOD, before whom otherwise the weakness of our faith were cause sufficient to make us culpable, yea, to shut us from the kingdom of heaven, where nothing that is not absolute can enter.”

“It is not the question,” says Bishop Andrewes, “whether we have an inherent righteousness or no, or whether GOD will accept or reward it; but whether that must be our righteousness _coram rege justo judicium faciente_, which is a point very material, and by no means to be forgotten; for, without this, if we compare ourselves with ourselves, what heretofore we have been, or if we compare ourselves with others, as did the Pharisees, we may take a fancy, perhaps, and have some good conceit of our inherent righteousness. Yea, if we be to deal in schools by argument or disputation, we may, peradventure, argue for it, and make some show in the matter. But let us once be brought and arraigned _coram rege justo sedente in solio_, let us set ourselves there, we shall then see that all our former conceit shall vanish straight, and righteousness in that sense (that is, an inherent righteousness) will not abide the trial.”

“The Homilies of our Church,” as Dr. Waterland, adopting their doctrine, observes, “describe and limit the doctrine thus: ‘Faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of GOD, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified: but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying;’ that is to say, from the office of accepting or receiving it; for as to the office of justifying in the active sense, that belongs to GOD only, as the same homily elsewhere declares. The doctrine is there further explained thus: ‘Because faith doth directly send us to CHRIST for remission of our sins, and that, by faith given us of GOD, we embrace the promise of GOD’S mercy, and of the remission of our sins, (which thing none other of our virtues or works properly doth,) therefore the Scripture useth to say, that faith without works doth justify.’”

It is observed by Faber “that, in the progress of a Christian man from his original justification to his final salvation, these several states or conditions of righteousness successively appertain to him.

“First in order comes the forensic righteousness of justification; a righteousness reputatively his, through faith, and on account of the perfect meritoriousness of CHRIST.

“Next in order comes the inherent righteousness of sanctification; a righteousness infused into him by the HOLY SPIRIT after he has been justified.

“And last in order comes the complete righteousness of glorification; a righteousness acquired by him, when this corruptible puts on incorruption, and this mortal puts on immortality.

“The first righteousness, being the righteousness of CHRIST, is perfect, but not inherent.

“The second righteousness, being the subsequently infused righteousness of a _justified_ Christian man, is inherent, but not perfect.

“The third righteousness, being the acquired righteousness of a _departed_ Christian man in his glorified state hereafter, is both perfect and inherent.”

SANCTIFY. (See _Sanctification_.) To make holy, to treat as holy, or to set apart for holy services. (Exod. xix. 10, 22, 23; xxx. 29; Deut. v. 13; Isa. viii. 13; xxix. 23; Eph. v. 26; 1 Thess. v. 23.)

SANCTUARY. The holy of holies (Lev. iv. 6); the temple at large (2 Chron. xx. 8); the one place of national worship for the Israelites (Deut. xii. 5); also the place within the Septurn, or rails, where the altar stands in the Christian church.

By sanctuary is also meant the privilege of criminals who have fled to certain sacred places, to have their freedom from arrest and punishment, except ecclesiastical discipline, so long as they remain therein. This custom of sanctuary, which is now almost everywhere done away with, for the abuse to which it gave rise, was derived from the Levitical law of refuge, by which, at GOD’S express appointment, six cities were made cities of refuge for the involuntary manslayer: and the altar of burnt-offerings was also a place of refuge for persons who had undesignedly committed smaller offences. (Deut. xix. 11, 12; Joshua xx.) In this Divine law the object seems to have been to mark GOD’S hatred of sin, by showing that even accidental and unpremeditated offences were forgiven only by an especial exercise of his mercy. The corrupt custom of sanctuary in the middle ages was extended to the protection of those who knowingly and willingly committed the most heinous offences. (See _Asylum_.)

SANCTUS. (See _Tersanctus_.)

SANDEMANIANS, or GLASSITES. A dissenting community, which had its origin in the preaching and deposition of one John Glas, presbyterian minister of the parish of Tealing, near Dundee, in 1730. His pupil, Robert Sandeman, brought his doctrine into England, and also into America, and from him the sect derives its name, though in Scotland it is still designated after its first founder. The Sandemanians are not a numerous sect.

The following is the account of the Sandemanians in the Registrar-general’s Return.

“The Sandemanians—sometimes called Glassites, both appellations being derived from the names of the founders of the sect—first came into notice in Scotland about 1728 or 1729; when Mr. Glass, a minister of the Scottish National Church, avowed opinions on Church government approaching very nearly those maintained by Congregationalists. Robert Sandeman appeared in advocacy of the same opinions about 1757, and formed a congregation in London in 1762.

“The prominent doctrine of the Sandemanians, on which they differ from most other Churches, relates to the nature of justifying faith, which Sandeman maintained to be ‘no more than a simple _assent_ to the Divine testimony, passively received by the understanding.’

“Sandemanians, also, observe certain peculiar practices, supposed by them to have been prevalent amongst the primitive Christians, such as weekly sacraments, love feasts, mutual exhortation, washing each other’s feet, plurality of elders, the use of the lot, &c.

“The number of Sandemanian congregations in England reported by the Census officers was six; the number of sittings (after an estimate for two chapels where the information was not given) was 956; and the number of attendants on the Census Sunday was: _Morning_, 439; _Afternoon_, 256; _Evening_, 61.

SANHEDRIM, or SENATE. A corrupted word, from the Greek, συνέδριον. (See St. Mark xiv. 55; xv. 1; St. Luke xxii. 66, where mention is made of the _Synedrion_: St. John xi. 47; Acts iv. 15.) The origin of the Sanhedrim is not without obscurity; for the council of the seventy elders established by Moses was not what the Hebrews understood by the name of Sanhedrim. Nor can we perceive this establishment under Joshua, the Judges, or the Kings. We find nothing of it after the captivity till the time of Judas Maccabeus. The tribunals established by Gabinius were very different from the Sanhedrim. This was the only court of its kind, and fixed at Jerusalem; whereas, Gabinius established five tribunals at five different cities, which tribunals do not appear to have been subordinate one to another. Lastly, it is certain that this senate was in being in time of JESUS CHRIST. (Vide supra.) But the Jews inform us themselves, that they then had not the power of life and death. (St. John xviii. 31.)—_Calmet, ed. Taylor._ The chief council of the Jewish nation, composed of seventy or seventy-two judges, and said to have taken its rise from the seventy elders appointed to assist Moses.

SARUM. (See _Use_.)

SATAN. A Hebrew word, שטן, signifying _an adversary_, _an enemy_, _an accuser_. It is often translated adversary in our translation of the Bible, as also in the Septuagint and Vulgate. For example, (1 Sam. xxix. 4,) the princes of the Philistines say to Achish, “Send back David, lest in the battle he be an adversary to us, and turn his arm against us.” The LORD stirred up adversaries to Solomon in the persons of Hadad and Rezon. (1 Kings xi. 14, 23, &c.) Sometimes Satan is put for the Devil; for example, Satan presented himself among the sons of GOD, and the LORD said unto Satan, “Whence comest thou?” (Job i. 6, 7, &c.) And in Psalm cix. 6, it is said, “Let Satan stand at his right hand;” and in Zech. iii. 1, 2, it is said, “Satan standing at his right hand; and the LORD said unto Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan.’” In the books of the New Testament, the word Satan is taken both in the sense of an adversary, and also for the Devil; for example, CHRIST says to Peter, (Matt. xvi. 23,) “Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me;” that is, Begone, O mine adversary, you that withstand what I most desire, and what I came into the world about. But most commonly Satan is taken for the Devil. (Matt. xii. 26; Mark iii. 23.) “If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself.” And in the Revelation, (xx. 2,) “He laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.” (See the article _Devil_.)

SATAN, KINGDOM OF. In the Gospel, (Matt. xii. 26; Mark iii. 23, and Luke xi. 18,) our blessed LORD represents Satan to us as a monarch, who has other subordinate devils obedient to him. Beelzebub is, as it were, their king. “If Beelzebub,” says he, “drives out devils, his kingdom is divided against itself; he labours for his own ruin; which is by no means credible; it is therefore false that I drive out devils in the name of Beelzebub.” St. Paul acknowledges in the Acts, (xxvi. 18,) that all those which are not in the religion of JESUS CHRIST, are under the empire and power of Satan. St. John (Rev. xx. 7) says, that, after a thousand years, Satan should be unbound, should come forth from hell, and subdue the nations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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