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

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.