Chapter LXXII: Act 46: , Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, King James VI., do (48)

By the Church of England, the sovereign is thus regarded as being over all persons, and over all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, supreme. On this head an objection is raised against the Church of England, as if her ministers derived their authority from the Crown. This objection is thus answered by Palmer: 1. We must insist upon it that the _principles of the Church of England_, with reference to the authority of the civil magistrate in ecclesiastical affairs, cannot be determined in any way by the opinions of lawyers, or the preambles of acts of parliament. We nowhere subscribe to either one or the other. 2. The opinion of the temporal power itself as to its own authority in ecclesiastical affairs, and its acts in accordance with such opinions, are perfectly distinct from the principles of the Church of England on these points. We are not bound to adopt such opinions, or approve such acts of temporal rulers, nor even to approve every point of the existing law. 3. The clergy of England, in acknowledging the supremacy of the king, A.D. 1531, did so, as Burnet proves, with the important proviso, “_quantum per Christi legem licet_;” which _original condition is ever to be supposed_ in our acknowlegment of the royal supremacy. Consequently we give no authority to the prince, except what is consistent with the maintenance of all those rights, liberties, jurisdictions, and spiritual powers, “which the law of CHRIST confers on his Church.” 4. The Church of England believes the jurisdiction and commission of her clergy to come from GOD, by apostolic succession, as is evident from the ordination service, and has been _proved_ by the Papist Milner himself (“Letters to a Prebendary,” Let. 8); and it is decidedly the doctrine of the great majority of her theologians. 5. The acts of English monarchs have been objected in proof of their views on the subject. We are not bound to subscribe to those views. If their acts were wrong in any case, we never approved them, though we may have been obliged by circumstances to submit to intrusions and usurpations. But since this is a favourite topic with Romanists, let us view the matter a little on another side. I ask, then, whether the parliaments of France did not, for a long series of years, exercise jurisdiction over the administration of the sacraments, compelling the Roman bishops and priests of France to give the sacrament to Jansenists, whom they believed to be heretics? Did they not repeatedly judge in questions of faith, viz. as to the obligation of the bull “_Unigenitus_?” Did they not take cognizance of questions of faith and discipline to such a degree, that they were said to resemble “a school of theology?” I ask whether the clergy of France in their convocations were not _wholly_ under the control of the king, who could prescribe their subjects of debate, prevent them from debating, prorogue, dissolve, &c.?

Did they not repeatedly beg in vain from the kings of France, for a long series of years, to be permitted to hold provincial synods for the suppression of immorality, heresy, and infidelity? Is not this liberty still withheld from them, and from every other Roman Church in Europe? I further ask whether the emperor Joseph II. did not _enslave_ the Churches of Germany and Italy? Whether he did not suppress monasteries, suppress and unite bishoprics? Whether he did not suspend the bishops from conferring orders, exact from them oaths of obedience to all his measures present and future, issue royal decrees for removing images from churches, and for the regulation of Divine worship down to the minutest points, even to the number of candles at mass? Whether he did not take on himself to silence preachers who had declaimed against persons of unsound faith? Whether he did not issue decrees against the bull “_Unigenitus_,” thus interfering with the doctrinal decision of the whole Roman Church? I ask whether this conduct was not accurately imitated by the grand duke of Tuscany, the king of Naples, the duke of Parma; whether it did not become prevalent in almost every part of the Roman Church; and whether its effects do not continue to the present day? I again ask, whether “Organic Articles” were not enacted by Buonaparte in the new Gallican Church, which placed everything in ecclesiastical affairs under the government? Whether the bishops were not forbidden by the emperor to confer orders without the permission of government; whether the obvious intention was not to place the priests, even in their spiritual functions, under the civil powers? And, in fine, whether these obnoxious “Organic Articles” are not, up to the present day, in almost every point in force? I again inquire whether the order of Jesuits was not suppressed by the mere civil powers, in Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, &c.; whether convents, monasteries, confraternities, friars, and monks, and nuns, of every sort and kind, were not extinguished, suppressed, annihilated by royal commission, and by the temporal power, in France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Sicily, Spain, Portugal, &c., and in opposition to the petitions and protests of the pope and the bishops? I again ask, whether the king of Sicily does not, in his “Tribunal of the Monarchy,” up to the present day, try ecclesiastical causes, censure, excommunicate, absolve? Whether this tribunal did not, in 1712, give absolution from episcopal excommunications; and whether it was not restored by Benedict XII. in 1728?

Is there a Roman Church on the continent of Europe, where the clergy can communicate freely with him whom they regard as their spiritual head; or where all papal bulls, rescripts, briefs, &c. are not subjected to a rigorous surveillance on the part of government, and allowed or disallowed at its pleasure? In fine, was not Gregory XVI. himself compelled, in his encyclical letter of 1832, to utter the most vehement complaints and lamentations, at the degraded condition of the Roman obedience? Does he not confess that the Church is “subjected to _earthly considerations_,” “_reduced to a base servitude_,” “the rights of its bishops _trampled on?_” These are all certain facts: I appeal in proof of them to the Roman historians, and to many other writers of authority; and they form but a part of what might be said on this subject. Romanists should blush to accuse the Church of England for the acts of our civil rulers in ecclesiastical matters. They should remember those words, “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

But it will be objected, all this was contrary at least to the principles of the Roman Church, while English theologians, on the contrary, exaggerate the authority of the civil magistrate in ecclesiastical affairs. We admit unequivocally, that some of our theologians have spoken unadvisedly on this subject. But what of that? Can they have gone further than the whole school of Gallican writers, of modern canonists, and reforming theologians, in the Romish Church, whose object is to overthrow the papal power, and render the Church subservient in all things to the State? Do Romanists imagine that we are ignorant of the principles of Pithou and the Gallican School, of Giannone, Van Espen, Zallwein, De Hontheim, Ricci, Eybel, Sioch, Rechberger, Oberhauser, Riegger, Cavallari, Tamburini, and fifty others, who were tinged with the very principles imputed to us? Do they forget that their _clergy_ in many parts have petitioned _princes_ to remove the _canonical law_ of celibacy? In fine, is it not well known, that there is a conspiracy among many of their theologians, to subject the discipline of the Church to the civil magistrate? It is really too much for Romanists to assail us on the very point where they are themselves most vulnerable, and where they are actually most keenly suffering. Our Churches, though subject to some inconvenience, and lately aggrieved by the suppression of bishoprics in Ireland, contrary to the solemn protests of the bishops and clergy, are yet in a far more respectable and independent position than the Roman Churches. Those amongst us who maintain the highest principles of the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, have reason to feel thankful that we have not yet fallen to the level of the Church of Rome.

SUPREMACY, PAPAL. The fourth Lateran Council, in the year 1215, is the first of those called general which recognised the authority of the Roman see as supreme over the Church. In the fifth canon the Roman Church is said to have “a principality of power over all others, as the mother and mistress of all Christian believers;” and all other patriarchs are required to receive their palls from the Roman pontiff. The titles of universal pope and universal patriarch, first used by the bishops of Constantinople, and afterwards applied indifferently to the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, as appears by the letters of the emperor Constantine Pogonatus, in Labbe and Cossart, vol. vi. pp. 593, 599, were titles of honour, and did not imply universal jurisdiction. There was no allusion to it in any former general council; so that, up to 1215, it was free for a man to think how he pleased concerning it. And not only were men free to deny the papal supremacy, they were bound to resist and reject it, in all places where it could not be proved to have been from the beginning. For so it was decreed by the third general council, which was assembled at Ephesus, A. D. 431, “that none of the bishops, most beloved of GOD, do assume any other province that is not, and was not formerly, and from the beginning, subject to him, or those who were his predecessors. But if any have assumed any church, that he be forced to restore it, that so the canons of the fathers be not transgressed, nor worldly pride be introduced under the mask of this sacred function. The holy general synod hath therefore decreed, that the right of every province, formerly, and from the beginning, belonging to it, be preserved clear and inviolable.” This decree was passed on the occasion of an attempt by the patriarch of Antioch to usurp authority over the churches of the island of Cyprus, which had not been formerly under his jurisdiction, and is worthy of notice to the members of the Churches of England and Ireland. For as it is beyond denial, from the conduct of the British and Irish bishops, that the Churches in these islands knew no subjection to Rome up to the close of the sixth century, it is certain that every exercise of jurisdiction which the bishop of Rome practised afterwards for a time in this kingdom, was in violation of the decrees of the Catholic Church, and that the Churches here were merely acting in obedience to those decrees, when, after having made trial of that cruel bondage, they were enabled to release themselves from it. There is one other thing not unworthy of notice as concerns this point. By the creed of Pope Pius, all communicants in the Church of Rome are required to acknowledge as part of that “faith without which no man can be saved,” “the holy Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, for the mother and mistress of all Churches.” It should be known that the Fathers assembled in the second general council, Constantinople, A. D. 381, gave the title which is here claimed for Rome to the Church of Jerusalem, as appears from their synodical epistle. “We acknowledge the most venerable Cyril, most beloved of GOD, to be bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, which is the mother of all Churches.”—See _Conc._ ii. 866. Thus then it appears, that in order to obtain communion in Rome, it is necessary to record an opinion directly at variance with that of a general council universally acknowledged.

The following has been abbreviated from Mr. Sanderson Robins’s very able treatise on the Evidence of Scripture against the Claims of the Church of Rome.

“The earlier popes knew nothing of the modern view which makes Peter and his alleged successors to be the supreme pastors, and all other bishops subordinate and deriving authority from them. Launoy cites no fewer than forty who employ the term fellow-bishop, and fellow-priest; which utterly contradicts the opinion of Bellarmine and his school. The very formula which indicates the invasion of episcopal independence, ‘By the grace of the apostolic see,’ is not to be traced farther back than the middle of the thirteenth century. Yet Duval argues that because the jurisdiction of bishops can be limited or taken away by the pope, it is not derived immediately from Christ. The converse is the true proposition; because it is derived immediately from Christ, it cannot be limited or taken away by the pope.

“The interpretation which assigns supreme power to the pope as Peter’s successor, would make him universal bishop, and leave nothing but vicarial power to all other bishops, which is exactly the conclusion so strenuously resisted by Gregory the Great, when he feared the growing importance of the see of Constantinople. Bellarmine admits the title to be antichristian and profane; but when he attempts to draw a distinction in favour of the powers claimed for the bishop of Rome, he reasons illogically, as Launoy has abundantly proved.

“The witness of the Bible remains, in spite of all efforts to conceal or pervert its meaning by those who are interested in defending an adverse system. It represents the office of CHRIST as incommunicable and unapproachable. He is the Root, from which the branches derive life and strength; the Shepherd, who knows his sheep, and is known of them; the heavenly Bridegroom, to whom the Church is espoused. So, again, he is ‘the Head over all things to the Church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.’ When the title is ascribed to another, there is insurmountable difficulty involved. If Peter, or the bishop of Rome, is the head, then the Church must in the same sense be his body, which no one ventures to say. The distinction, again, between a visible and an invisible head has not the least show of Scripture proof, and is no better than an invention to meet an obvious difficulty. Nor is it of any avail to speak, as some do, of CHRIST as the essential, and Peter as the ministerial head, because whatever relation to the Church is represented by the figure, can exist only under the former, that is, by the union of believers to CHRIST, which is maintained through the ministry of the word and sacraments.

“There is an utter and hopeless disagreement, and on a point which involves supreme government. It is no secondary question, but one, as Dupin reminds us, which includes all ecclesiastical discipline. And yet, whether pope is superior to council, or the reverse; and whether the pope enjoys his prerogatives by Divine right, or ecclesiastical, has never been defined, though the decision is above all things required. In the Council of Trent, where the delivery of a clear, intelligible doctrine might have been reasonably expected, there was, instead, a prohibition of all discussion on the subject. It is not even settled whether, by disagreement on the question, persons incur the peril of heresy; Gerson holds the affirmative, and Bossuet sides with him, while Duval and others maintain the negative. The truth is, that the Roman Church has authorized two opposite conclusions, which have been enforced as the one party or the other prevailed. It is not the mere contention of private doctors, whose judgment might on either side be disavowed, but it is the Church itself which speaks inconsistently by its synodical decisions. It has, indeed, been demanded unreasonably, and sometimes incautiously allowed, that no statements of doctrine should be attributed to the Roman Church as authoritative, but such as are contained in the decrees of the Council of Trent, in the creed of Pius IV., and in the catechism. But it is to be observed, in the first place, that the decisions of the council avowedly do not extend beyond such points as had been brought into question by Protestants, and, at the same time, had not been disputed among Romanists themselves, for it was expressly enjoined that no definition should be made about any matter controverted among ‘Catholics’ themselves. The creed and the catechism have no more than the authority of the individual pope, by whom they were promulgated. It is true that this office was remitted to the bishop of Rome by the members of the council, but they possessed no such power of delegation. They might have adopted any decree of the pope, and have given it synodical sanction; but their consent previous to the consideration, or even knowledge of its contents, could not afford any weight additional to that which the pope alone could give. And, in the next place, the index of books, the catechism, the breviary, and the missal, possess equal authority, for they are enumerated together in the decree passed at the close of the council; that is, they possess as much authority as the decree of a pope could give them, and less than that which belongs to the decree of a council which has papal confirmation. It is true that, in the last of the articles which Pius IV. added to the creed of the Church Catholic, there is a profession of adherence to the decrees of general councils; but then no Romanist can tell what is and what is not a general council. It depends on the school to which he belongs, and on which side of the mountains he happens to live. Some so-called general councils, as Bellarmine tells us, are received, some are rejected, and some partly approved and partly reprobated; which, as Leslie says truly, ‘is going through all the degrees of uncertainty.’ The chief difficulty arises from those which flatly contradict each other, and which yet, from indispensable considerations, the Roman Church is obliged to acknowledge; they are chiefly such as pronounce upon this question of the supreme authority. At Pisa, and Constance, and Basle, the superiority of a council was distinctly and absolutely affirmed; and obedience required from all persons of whatever dignity, including the pope. In the Council of Florence it was decreed that the pope, as the successor of Peter, and as the vicar of CHRIST, is head of the whole church, the father and teacher of all Christians, and that plenary power from CHRIST was given him, in the person of St. Peter, to feed the universal flock. The Lateran Council under Leo X. decreed that the pope has full authority over all councils, to summon, transfer, and dissolve them. It is to be observed, that these conflicting decisions of great Roman councils are no more than the embodying in decrees the opposite interpretations of that text which forms the main Scripture authority for all papal assumptions. No Latin council is to be compared with that of Constance for importance or dignity; and by its acts, accepted and confirmed through the whole Western Church, it rejected the exposition which Romanists are now trying to enforce. M. de Maistre, the chief papal champion in the present century, disposes of the difficulty in a very characteristic way. When pressed with the Decrees of Constance, he says that the answer is easy: the council talked nonsense, like the English Long Parliament, or the Constituent Assembly, or the National Convention, &c.

“Our opponents boast that their Church is the same everywhere; but we cross the Alps, and find the whole system of ecclesiastical doctrine changed. The very term, ultramontane, which is universally recognised as the distinction of a school, bears witness that diversities have not only subsisted at different periods, but exist at the same time in different places. The Gallican Church has, doubtless, been the stronghold of those who deny the absolute power of the pope; but they have had their advocates among distinguished members of the Roman communion in all countries. Panormitan represented them in Italy, Cardinal de Cusa in Germany, and in Spain Alphonso Tostato, of whom Bellarmine says that he was the wonder of the world for his learning. Nay, even in the university of Paris, and among the doctors of the Sorbonne, we find the contest raging with the utmost violence, and the great teachers in vehement antagonism. Sometimes we see the representative of the pope brought into collision with the theological professor; as when Richer maintained the prevalent opinions of his Church against Cardinal du Perron, who, being a convert from Protestantism, was, of course, extravagant on the other side. Then, at the close of the century, we have Roccaberti, archbishop of Valentia, unsparing in his condemnation of the Gallicans, and calling on the pope to put them down. While Bossuet, on the other hand, affirms that the doctrine which he maintained had always been held in the Church; though he does not attempt to prove that there had not been another distinct line of teaching.”

SURCINGLE. The belt by which the cassock is fastened round the waist.

SURETY. (See _Sponsors_.)

SURPLICE. A white linen garment, worn by the Christian clergy and other ministers of the Church, in the celebration of Divine services, and also, on certain days, by members of colleges, whether clerical or lay. It is, in Latin, _superpelliceum_, a name which Cardinal Bona says was not older than 600 years before his time, (the middle of the seventeenth century,) and was so called from the white garment which was placed by ecclesiastics, _super pelles_, over the garments of dressed skins worn by the northern nations.

This habit seems to have been originally copied from the vestments of the Jewish priests, who, by GOD’S own appointment, were to put on a white linen ephod at the time of public service. And its antiquity in the Christian Church may be seen from Gregory Nazianzen, who advised the priests to purity, because a little spot is soon seen in a white garment; but more expressly from St. Jerome, who, reproving the needless scruples of such as opposed the use of it, says, “what offence can it be to GOD, for a bishop or priest to proceed to the communion in a white garment?” The ancients called this garment, from its colour, _Alba_, the _Albe_, a word in later times applied to a surplice with close sleeves.

The surplice is white, to represent the innocence and righteousness with which GOD’S ministers ought to be clothed. As for the shape of it, it is a thing so perfectly indifferent, that no reason need to be assigned for it; though Durandus has found out one: for that author observes, that, as the garments used by the Jewish priesthood were girt tight about them, to signify the bondage of the law; so the looseness of the surplices used by the Christian priests signifies the freedom of the gospel.

It is objected by dissenters from the Church of England, against the use of the surplice, that it is a rag of Popery, and has been abused by the Papists to superstitious and idolatrous uses. But this is no just objection against it; for, if the surplice, or some such white garment, was in use among the primitive Christians, the Church is justified in following their example, notwithstanding the abuses thereof by those of the Romish or any other communion.

Whether the surplice should be worn by the preacher in the pulpit is a question which has given rise, of late years, to much unprofitable controversy. On the side of wearing the surplice, it is said that the preacher is nowhere in the Prayer Book directed to change his dress; and therefore his dress should be, as before prescribed, the surplice. On the other hand it has been shown that, before the Reformation, the preachers were accustomed to wear their ordinary dress in the pulpit, except in cathedrals and collegiate churches, which custom has come down to us; and to adhere to inherited customs is to act on the catholic principle. On these facts it is obvious to remark, first, that the ultra-Protestants who are very violent against the use of the surplice by the preacher,—are, in this instance, the Romanizers; and secondly, that if the surplice be not worn, since no preacher’s dress is appointed by the Church, the preacher would be more correct who should appear in his ordinary costume. But those who are wise on either side, will, in regard to a thing so purely indifferent, follow the customs of the place in which they are called to officiate.

SURPLICE DAYS, or _times_. According to the 17th canon, “all masters and fellows of colleges or halls, and all the scholars and students in either of the universities, shall in their churches and chapels, upon all Sundays, holy-days, and their eves, at the time of Divine service, wear surplices according to the order of the Church of England; and such as are graduates, shall agreeably wear with their surplices such hoods as do severally appertain unto their degrees.” Saturday evening, it is to be observed, as the eve of Sunday, has always been considered as coming within this rule. The colleges in the universities of Cambridge and Dublin construe this rule as applying to all their members; those of Oxford, Christ Church excepted, to the foundation members only; and there noblemen are deprived of the privilege of wearing the surplice. By the 25th canon, the use of the surplice is prescribed daily to the dean, masters, heads of collegiate churches, canons, and prebendaries. The short surplice adopted in the Roman Church is a corruption, as Cardinal Bona confesses. He says that “Stephen of Tonmay, who lived A. D. 1180, shows that the surplice formerly reached to the feet;” and so likewise “Honorius de Vestibus Clericorum:” and that in the course of time it was shortened, as it appears from the Council of Basle, sess. 21, which commanded the clergy to have surplices reaching below the middle of the leg. He adds, that they are now so much shortened as scarcely to reach to the knee. Hence it is evident that the Church of England retains the correct and ancient fashion.—_Jebb._

SURROGATE. Surrogate is one who is substituted or appointed in the room of another. Thus the office of granting licences for marriage in lieu of banns, being in the bishop of the diocese by his chancellor, the inconvenience of a journey to the seat of episcopal jurisdiction is obviated by the appointment of clergymen in the principal towns of the diocese as surrogates, with the power of granting such licences, and of granting probates of wills, &c.

By canon 128, “No chancellor, commissary, archdeacon, official, or any other person using ecclesiastical jurisdiction, shall substitute in their absence any to keep court for them, unless he be either a grave minister and a graduate, or a licensed public preacher, and a beneficed man near the place where the courts are kept, or a bachelor of law, or a master of arts at least, who hath some skill in the civil and ecclesiastical law, and is a favourer of true religion, and a man of modest and honest conversation; under pain of suspension, for every time that they offend therein, from the execution of their offices for the space of three months _toties quoties_: and he likewise that is deputed, being not qualified as is before expressed, and yet shall presume to be a substitute to any judge, and shall keep any court as aforesaid, shall undergo the same censure in manner and form as is before expressed.”

And by the statute of the 26 Geo. II. c. 33, No surrogate, deputed by any ecclesiastical judge, who hath power to grant licences of marriage, shall grant any such licence before he hath taken an oath before the said judge, faithfully to execute his office according to law, to the best of his knowledge; and hath given security by his bond in the sum of £100 to the bishop of the diocese, for the due and faithful execution of his office.

SURSUM CORDA. (_Lift up your hearts._) Cyprian, in the third century, attests the use of the form “Lift up your hearts,” and its response, in the liturgy of Africa. Augustine, at the beginning of the fifth century, speaks of these words as being used in _all_ churches. And accordingly we find them placed at the beginning of the Anaphora, or canon, (or solemn prayers,) in the liturgies of Antioch and Cæsarea, Constantinople and Rome, Africa, Gaul, and Spain. How long these introductory sentences have been used in England it would be in vain to inquire: we have no reason, however, to doubt that they are as old as Christianity itself in these countries. The Gallican and Italian churches used them, and Christianity with its liturgy probably came to the British isles from one or other of those churches. We may be certain, at all events, that they have been used in the English liturgy ever since the time of Augustine, archbishop of Canterbury, in 595.

It appears that these sentences were preceded by a salutation or benediction in the ancient liturgies. According to Theodoret, the beginning of the mystical liturgy, or most solemn prayers, was that apostolic benediction, “The grace of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and the love of GOD, and the fellowship of the HOLY GHOST, be with you all.” The same was also alluded to by Chrysostom, when he was a presbyter of the Church of Antioch. We find that this benediction, with the response of the people, “And with thy spirit,” has all along preserved its place in the East; for in the liturgies of Cæsarea, Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem, it is uniformly placed at the beginning of the _Anaphora_, just before the form, “Lift up your hearts.” In Egypt, Africa, and Italy, the apostolic benediction was not used at this place, but instead of it the priest said, “The LORD be with you,” and the people replied, “and with thy spirit.” In Spain, and probably Gaul, as now in England, there was no salutation before the introductory sentences.

_Priest._ Lift up your hearts. │_Sacerdos._ corda. _Answer._ We lift them up unto the│_Respons._ Habemus ad Dominum. Lord. │ _Priest._ Let us give thanks unto │_Sacerdos._ Gratias agamus Domino our Lord God. │Deo nostro. _Answer._ It is meet and right so │_Respons_. Dignum et justum est. to do. │ │ _Palmer._

SUSANNAH, THE HISTORY OF. An apocryphal book (or rather chapter) of the Bible, containing the story of one Susannah, daughter of Chelcias, and the wife of Joachim, of the tribe of Judah, who lived at Babylon, being carried thither captive with her husband, probably at the same time with Daniel, that is, in the year of the world 3398, before Christ 604. The story is well known, being allowed to be read, among other apocryphal books, for the instruction of manners.

This history makes part of the book of Daniel in the Greek, but is not found in the Hebrew. Many therefore have disputed, not only the canonicalness, but even the truth of it; imagining it to be no more than a pious fable, invented as an example of a chaste and loyal wife. Julius Africanus was of this opinion; and St. Jerome in some places censures it as a mere fable; though, in others, he tells us that not only the Greeks and Latins, but the Syrians and Egyptians also, received and admitted it as Scripture. Origen wrote expressly in defence of it. The Church of Rome allows it to be of equal authority with the Book of Daniel.

SUSPENSION. In the laws of the Church we read of two sorts of suspension; one relating solely to the clergy, the other extending also to the laity. That which relates solely to the clergy is suspension from office and benefice jointly, or from office or benefice singly; and may be called a temporary degradation, or deprivation of both. And the penalty upon a clergyman officiating after suspension, if he shall persist therein after a reproof from the bishop, (by the ancient canon law,) that he shall be excommunicated all manner of ways, and every person who communicates with him shall be excommunicated also. The other sort of suspension, which extends also to the laity, is suspension _ab ingressu ecclesiæ_, or from the hearing of Divine service, and receiving the holy communion; which may therefore be called a temporary excommunication. Which two sorts of suspension, the one relating to the clergy alone, and the other to the laity also, do herein agree, that both are inflicted for crimes of an inferior nature, such as in the first case deserve not deprivation, and such as in the second case deserve not excommunication; that both, in practice at least, are temporary; both also terminate either at a certain time, when inflicted for such time, or upon satisfaction given to the judge when inflicted until something be performed which he has enjoined; and lastly, both (if unduly performed) are attended with further penalties; that of the clergy with irregularity, if they act in the mean time; and that of the laity (as it seems) with excommunication, if they either presume to join in communion during their suspension, or do not in due time perform those things which the suspension was intended to enforce the performance of.

SWEDENBORGIANS. This body of Christians claims to possess an entirely new dispensation of doctrinal truth derived from the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg; and, as the name imports, they refuse to be numbered with the sects of which the general body of Christendom is at present composed.

Emanuel Baron Swedenborg was born at Stockholm in 1688, and died in London in 1772. He was a person of great intellectual attainments, a member of several of the learned societies of Europe, and the author of very voluminous philosophical treatises. In 1745 he separated himself from all secular pursuits, relinquished his official labours in the Swedish State, and commenced the career which led to a religious movement. In that year, and thenceforth, he was favoured, he reports, with continual communications from the spiritual world, being oftentimes admitted into heaven itself, and there indulged with splendid visions of angelic glory and felicity. The power was given him to converse with these celestial residents; and from their revelations, sometimes made directly to himself and sometimes gathered by him from the course of their deliberations, he obtained the most important of his doctrines. His own account of the matter is thus stated in a letter to a friend:—“I have been called to a holy office by the Lord himself, who most graciously manifested himself before me, his servant, in the year 1745, and then opened my sight into the spiritual world, and gave me to speak with spirits and angels, as I do even to this day. From that time I began to publish the many arcana which I have either seen, or which have been revealed to me, concerning heaven and hell, concerning the state of man after death, concerning true Divine worship, and concerning the spiritual sense of the Word, besides other things of the highest importance, conducive to salvation and wisdom.”

The general result of these communications was to convince the baron that the sacred writings have two senses—one their natural, the other their spiritual, sense; the latter of which it was his high commission to unfold. The natural sense is that which is alone received by other Christian churches—the words of Scripture being understood to have the same signification (and no other) which they bear in ordinary human intercourse; the spiritual sense is that which, in the judgment of the New Church, is concealed within the natural sense of these same words, each word or phrase possessing, in addition to its ordinary meaning, an interior significance corresponding with some spiritual truth.

The principal tenets he deduced from this interior meaning of the Holy Word, and which his followers still maintain, are these: That the last judgment has already been accomplished (viz. in 1757); that the former “heaven and earth” are passed away; that the “New Jerusalem,” mentioned in the Apocalypse, has already descended, in the form of the “New Church;” and, that, consequently, the second advent of the LORD has even now been realized, in a spiritual sense, by the exhibition of his power and glory in the New Church thus established.

The usual doctrine of the Trinity is not received; the belief of the New Church being, “that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, comparatively as soul, body, and proceeding operation are one in every individual man.”

The New Church also rejects the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the imputed righteousness of Christ: salvation, it inculcates, cannot be obtained except by the combination of good works with faith. “To fear God, and to work righteousness, is to have charity; and whoever has charity, whatever his religious sentiments may be, will be saved.”

The resurrection, it is believed, will not be that of the material body, but of a spiritual body; and this will not immediately pass into a final state of being, but be subject to a kind of purgatory, where those who are interiorly good will receive truth corresponding with their state of goodness, and thus be fitted for heaven; while those who are interiorly evil will reject all truth, and thus be among the lost.

The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper are administered in the New Church. The former is believed to be “a sign and a medium, attended with a Divine influence of introduction into the Lord’s Church; and it means that the Lord will purify our minds from wicked desires and bad thoughts, if we are obedient to his holy word.” The latter is believed to be “a sign and a medium, attended with a Divine influence, for introducing the Lord’s true children, as to their spirits, into heaven; and it means that the Lord feeds their souls with his Divine goodness and truth.”

The mode of worship adopted by the followers of Swedenborg resembles in its general form that of most other Christian bodies; the distribution of subjects in their liturgy, and the composition of their hymns and prayers, being, of course, special; but no particular form is considered to be binding on each society.

The general affairs of the New Church (which is the name assumed by the Swedenborgian sect) are managed by a conference, which meets yearly, composed of ministers and laymen in conjunction; the proportion of the latter being determined by the size of the respective congregations which they represent: a society of from 12 to 50 members sending one representative, and societies of from 50 to 100 members, and those of upwards 100 members, sending each two and three representatives respectively. There is nothing, however, in Swedenborg’s writings to sanction any particular form of Church government.—_Registrar-general’s Report._

SYMBOL, or SYMBOLUM. A title anciently given to the Apostles’ Creed, and for which several reasons have been assigned. Two of these have an appearance of probability, viz. that (1.) which derives it from a Greek word, signifying a _throwing_ or _casting together_, and alleges that the apostles each contributed an article to form the creed, forming their joint opinion or counsel in an abridged form; and (2.) the opinion that this creed was used in times of persecution as a watchword or mark whereby Christians (like soldiers in the army) were distinguished from all others. This latter is the sense given in the short catechism of Edward VI., 1552, where we read, “_M._ Why is this abridgment of the faith termed a _symbol_? _S._ A symbol is, as much as to say, a sign, mark, privy token, or watchword, whereby the soldiers of the same camp are known from their enemies. For this reason the abridgment of the faith, whereby the Christians are known from them that are no Christians, is rightly named a symbol.”

The term symbol, importing an emblem or sensible representation, is also applied in the holy eucharist to the sacred elements, which there set forth the body and blood of CHRIST. (See also _Emblem_.)

SYMPHONY. In music, an instrumental composition in the form of an overture, &c. The term is popularly applied to short introductory movements on the organ, before anthems and other pieces; also to any portion performed by the instrument without the voices, including preludes, interludes, and postludes, i. e. strains _before_, in _the midst_, and at _the end_ of psalmody, and other church music.

The word _sumphónea_ occurs in Daniel iii. 5, 7, 10, 15; being evidently the Greek word συμφωνία, written in Hebrew or Chaldee letters, like other words in the same sentence, as Kaitheros, κιθύρα, (harp,) sabbeca, σαμβύκη, (sacbut,) psanterin, ψαλτήριον, (psaltery,) and which do not occur in the older Hebrew Scriptures. It is translated in our Bible _dulcimer_. Hardouin (in his note on Plinii Hist. Nat. ix. § 8) considers it to mean a musical instrument. But the majority of scholars, and of classical authorities, give as its meaning, a concert or combination of voices or instruments.

SYNOD. This is a meeting of ecclesiastical persons for the purposes of religion, and it comprehends the provincial synods of every metropolitan, and the diocesan of every bishop within their limits. And these are not of the same authority as general councils, nor do their canons oblige the whole Christian Church, but only that nation, province, or diocese where they were made; but if such canons are agreeable with the Scriptures, and confirmed by general councils, they are in force everywhere. The most famous synods have been held in Africa, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain. It would make a very large volume to treat particularly of those synods which have been held in each of those places, therefore we will refer to those which were assembled here in Britain; and as to that matter, we find that a synod was held here at Winchester, in the time of King Edgar, in which Archbishop Dunstan was president. In this synod the marriage of the clergy was prohibited. There was another held at Oxford, wherein Archbishop Langton was president, who divided the Bible into chapters; and in this synod many constitutions were made for the better government of the church. Another at Clarendon, under Archbishop Becket, in the reign of Henry II., in which some decrees were made concerning the prerogatives of the Crown and the privileges of the clergy. Two in the reign of Edward VI. And here we may notice that provincial synods were to be held twice in every year; this appears by the apostolical canons, and likewise by those made in the Council of Nice. But this being found too hard a task for bishops, (who were usually men in years,) especially where the provinces were large, it was disused about the middle of the fifth century: so that some canons were made for synods to be held once in a year, but not abrogating the ancient custom to hold them oftener; and this continued for many ages: but at last this came in like manner to be neglected, and thereupon, about the middle of the fourteenth century, another canon was made in the Council of Basil, for a triennial synod of all the bishops of every province; and in the same council there was another canon for every bishop to hold a diocesan synod once in a year. And even here in Britain, by the ancient constitution of this Church, a synod was to be held once a year, which is now discontinued, and thus the authority of examining things through the province devolved on the archdeacon. In a diocesan synod the bishop always presided, and he usually summoned _septem e plebe_ in every parish in his diocese, to whom he administered an oath to inquire into the state and condition of each parish relating to ecclesiastical affairs, which were called _testes synodales_, and these men made their presentments in writing, or _viva voce_ in the synod. (See _Councils_.)

The form of holding these diocesan synods was as follows:—The clergy, in solemn procession, came to the church assigned, at the time appointed by the bishop, and seated themselves according to the priority of their ordinations. Then the deacons and laity were admitted. The bishop, or in his absence the vicar, when the office for the occasion was over, made a solemn exhortation to the audience. Then a sermon was preached; after which, if the clergy had any complaints to make, or anything else to offer, they were heard by the synod. The complaints of the clergy being over, the laity made theirs. Then the bishop proposed his diocesan constitutions to them. After which, if nothing remained to be done, he made a synodical exhortation, by way of injunction, to the clergy; and all concluded with solemn prayers suited to the business. The form at the conclusion of the first day, called _Benedictio primæ diei_, was this: “Qui dispersos Israel congregat, ipse vos hic et ubique custodiat. Amen. Et non solum vos custodiat, sed ovium suarum custodes idoneos efficiat. Amen. Ut cum summo pastore Christo de gregum suarum pastione gaudeatis in cœlo. Amen. Quod ipse parare dignetur,” &c. The benedictions of the other days were much to the same purpose.

The common time allowed for despatching the business of these synods was three days; and a rubric was settled, to direct the proceedings in each of them. But, if the business could be despatched in a shorter time, the assembly continued no longer than was necessary.

The first thing done in these diocesan synods, was the bishop’s making his synodical inquiries, of which the ancient forms are still extant. Next, the synodical causes were heard. Then the bishop reported to his clergy what had been decreed in large provincial synods. And, lastly, he published his own diocesan constitutions, which being read, and agreed to by the synod, were from that time in force within the diocese, provided they were not contrary to the decrees of some superior council of the province. Of these we have several collections published in the volumes of the English councils, and many more are still remaining in the bishops’ registers.

These diocesan synods were continued in England till the reign of Henry VIII., that is, till the commencement of the Reformation.

Provincial synods are still held pro forma in Ireland, by the archbishop of Dublin, as they were by his predecessor, at the triennial visitations of his province. The constituent number are the same as for convocations, being the bishops of the province, deans, archdeacons, capitular and other proctors, &c. But the synods have no power to make canons.

SYNODALS and SYNODATICUM, by the name, have a plain relation to the holding of synods; but there being no reason why the clergy should pay for their attending the bishop in synod, pursuant to his own citation, nor any footsteps to be found of such a payment by reason of the holding of synods, the name is supposed to have grown from this duty being usually paid by the clergy when they came to the synod. And this in all probability is the same which was anciently called _cathedraticum_, as paid by the parochial clergy in honour to the episcopal chair, and in token of subjection and obedience thereto. So it stands in the body of the canon law, “No bishop shall demand anything of the churches but the honour of the cathedraticum, that is, two shillings” (at the most, saith the Gloss, for sometimes less is given). And the duty which we call synodals is generally such a small payment, which payment was reserved by the bishop upon settling the revenues of the respective churches on the incumbents; whereas before those revenues were paid to the bishop, who had a right to part of them for his own use, and a right to apply and distribute the rest to such uses and in such proportions as the laws of the Church directed.—_Gibson._

Synodals are due of common right to the bishop only, so that, if they be claimed or demanded by the archdeacon, or dean and chapter, or any other person or persons, it must be on the foot of composition or prescription.—_Id._

And if they be denied where due, they are recoverable in the spiritual court. And, in the time of Archbishop Whitgift, they were declared upon a full hearing to be spiritual profits, and as such to belong to the keeper of the spiritual see vacant.—_Id._

Constitutions made in the provincial or diocesan synods were also sometimes called synodals, and were in many cases required to be published in the parish churches: in this sense the word frequently occurs in the ancient directories.

TABERNACLE. Among the Hebrews, a kind of building, in the form of a tent, set up by the express command of GOD, for the performance of religious worship, sacrifices, &c. (Exod. xxvi., xxvii.)

TABERNACLES, FEAST OF. A solemn festival of the Hebrews, observed after harvest, on the fifteenth day of the month Tisri, instituted to commemorate the goodness of GOD, who protected the Israelites in the wilderness, and made them dwell in booths when they came out of Egypt. The _pyx_, or box in which the reserved host is placed on Romish altars, is called in the Missal the _Tabernacle_.

TALMUD. (Signifying doctrine.) A collection of the doctrines of the religion and morality of the Jews. It consists of two parts: 1. The _Misna_, or text; literally _repetition_: that is, a repetition or supplement to the Divine law; which they pretend was delivered to Moses on the mount, and transmitted from him to the members of the Sanhedrim. 2. The _Gemara_, (perfection, or completion,) which is the commentary. The origin of this work is as follows:—

Judah the Holy had no sooner completed the _Misna_, but one Rabbi Chun, jealous of his glory, published quite contrary traditions; a collection of which was made under the title of _Extravaganta_, and inserted with the _Misna_, in order to compose one and the same body of law.

Notwithstanding that the collection made by Judah seemed to be a complete work, yet two considerable faults were observed in it: one, that it was very confused, the author having reported the opinions of different doctors, without naming them, and determining which of these opinions deserved the preference: the other, (which rendered this body of canon law almost useless,) that it was too short, and resolved but a small part of the doubtful cases and questions that began to be agitated among the Jews.

To remedy these inconveniences, Jochanan, with the assistance of Rab and Samuel, two disciples of Judah the Holy, wrote a commentary upon their master’s work. This is called the Talmud of Jerusalem; either because it was composed in Judea, for the use of the Jews that remained in that country, or because it was written in the common language spoken there. The Jews are not agreed about the time that this part of the _Gemara_, which signifies _Perfection_, was made. Some believe it was two hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem; others reckon but a hundred and fifty; and maintain that Rab and Samuel, quitting Judea, went to Babylon, in the two hundred and nineteenth year of the Christian era. However, these are the heads of the second order of doctors, called Gemarists, because they composed the Gemara. (See _Gemara_.)

There was also a defect in the Jerusalem Talmud, for it contained the opinions of but a small number of doctors. For this reason the Gemarists, or commentators, began a new explication of the traditions. Rabbi Asa, who kept a school at Sora, near Babylon, where he taught forty years, produced a commentary upon Judah’s Misna. He did not finish it; but his sons and scholars put the last hand to it. This is called the Gemara, or Talmud, of Babylon, which is preferred before that of Jerusalem. It is a very large collection, containing the traditions, the canon law of the Jews, and all the questions relating to the Law.

In these two Talmuds is contained the whole of the Jewish religion as it is now possessed by that people, who esteem it equal with the law of GOD. Some Christians set a great value upon it, whilst others condemn it as a detestable book, and full of blasphemies; but a third sort observe a just medium between these opposite opinions.

Though the Talmud was received with general applause by the Jews, yet there started up a new order of doctors, who shook its authority by their doubts. These were called Sebarim, or opiniative doctors, and were looked upon by the Jews as so many sceptics, because they disputed without coming to a determination upon anything.

TARGUM. So the Jews call the Chaldee paraphrases, or expositions, of the Old Testament in the Chaldee language; for the Jewish doctors, in order to make the people understand the text of the Holy Scripture, (after the captivity,) which was read in Hebrew in their synagogues, were forced to explain the law to them in a language they understood; and this was the Chaldean, or that used in Assyria.

The Targums that are now remaining were composed by different persons, upon different parts of Scripture, and are in number eight.

1. The Targum of Onkelos upon the five books of Moses.