PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. (continued 37)

The following case relates particularly to a church; but is equally applicable to, and far more frequently happeneth in, the case of schools. It is that of Waltham church, H. 1716. Edward Denny, earl of Norwich, being seized by grant from King Edward VI., of the site and demesnes of the dissolved monastery of Waltham Holy Cross, and of the manor of Waltham, and of the patronage of the church of Waltham, and of the right of nominating a minister to officiate in the said church, it being a donative, the abbey being of royal foundation by his will in 1636, amongst other things the said earl devised a house in Waltham, and a rent-charge of £100 a year, and ten loads of wood to be annually taken out of the forest of Waltham, and his right of nominating a minister to officiate in the said church, to six trustees and their heirs, of which Sir Robert Atkins was one, in trust for the perpetual maintenance of the minister, to be from time to time nominated by the trustees; and directed that when the trustees were reduced to the number of three, they should choose others. It so fell out, that all the trustees, except Sir Robert Atkins, were dead; and he alone took upon him to enfeoff others to fill up the number; and now the surviving trustees (of the said Sir Robert’s appointment) did nominate Lapthorn to officiate; and the Lady Floyer and Campion, who were owners of the dissolved monastery and of the manor, claimed the right of nomination to the donative, and had nominated Cowper to 695officiate there, and he was got into possession. The bill was, that Lapthorn might be admitted to officiate there, and to be quieted in the possession, and to have an account of the profits. By the defendants it was amongst other things insisted, that the trustees having neglected to convey over to others, when they were reduced to the number of three, and the legal estate coming only to one single trustee, he had not power to elect others; but by that means the right of nomination resulted back to the grantor, and belonged to the defendants, who had the estate, and stood in his place; or at least the court ought to appoint such trustees as should be thought proper. By Cowper, Lord Chancellor: It is only directory to the trustees, that when reduced to three, they should fill up the number of trustees; and, therefore, although they neglected so to do, that would not extinguish or determine their right; and Sir Robert Atkins, the only surviving trustee, had a better right than any one else could pretend to, and might well convey over to other trustees; it was but what he ought to have done: and it was decreed for the plaintiff with costs, and an account of profits; but the master to allow a reasonable salary to Cowper, whilst he officiated there.

By the 43 Eliz. c. 2, all lands within the parish are to be assessed to the poor rate. But by the annual acts for the land tax it is provided, that the same shall not extend to charge any masters or ushers of any schools, for or in respect of any stipend, wages, rents, or profits, arising or growing due to them, in respect of their said places or employments.

Provided that nothing herein shall extend to discharge any tenant of any the houses or lands belonging to the said schools, who by their leases or other contracts are obliged to pay all rates, taxes, and impositions whatsoever; but that they shall be rated and pay all such rates, taxes, and impositions. And in general it is provided, that all such lands, revenues, or rents, settled to any charitable or pious use, as were assessed in the fourth year of William and Mary, shall be liable to be charged; and that no other lands, tenements or hereditaments, revenues, or rents whatsoever, then settled to any charitable or pious uses as aforesaid, shall be charged.—Burn.

The 4 & 5 Vict. c. 38, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 49, and 14 & 15 Vict. c. 24, facilitate the granting of land as sites for schools.

From the year 1818, owing to the inquiries of the commissioners appointed to examine into public charities, much was done with respect to schools founded for the benefit of particular localities. At length, in 1840, was passed the statute of 3 t& 4 Vict. c. 77, of which the preamble states the facts as they then stood. It is as follows:—“Whereas there are in England and Wales many endowed schools, both of royal and private foundation, for the education of boys or youth wholly or principally in grammar; and the term ‘grammar’ has been understood by courts of equity as having reference only to the dead languages, that is to say, Greek and Latin: and whereas such education, at the period when such schools, or the greater part, were founded, was supposed, not only to be sufficient to qualify boys or youth for admission to the universities, with a view to the learned professions, but was also necessary for preparing them for the superior trades and mercantile business: and whereas, from the change of times, and other causes, such education, without instruction in other branches of literature and science, is now of less value to those who are entitled to avail themselves of such charitable foundations, whereby such schools have, in many instances, ceased to afford a substantial fulfilment of the intentions of the founders, and the system of education in such grammar schools ought, therefore, to be extended and rendered more generally beneficial, in order to afford such fulfilment; but the patrons, visitors, and governors thereof are generally unable, of their own authority, to establish any other system of education than is expressly provided for by the foundation, and her Majesty’s courts of law and equity are frequently unable to give adequate relief, and in no case but with considerable expense; and whereas, in consequence of changes which have taken place in the population of particular districts, it is necessary, for the purpose aforesaid, that in some cases the advantages of such grammar schools should be extended to boys other than those to whom by the terms of the foundation, or the existing statutes, the same is now limited, and that in other cases some restriction should be imposed, either with reference to the total number to be admitted into the school, or as regards their proficiency at the time when they may demand admission; but in this respect also the said patrons, visitors, and governors, and the courts of equity, are frequently without sufficient authority to make such extension or restriction: and whereas it is expedient that in certain cases grammar 696schools in the same place should be united.” The act, having recited these circumstances, proceeds to enable her Majesty’s courts of equity, when questions relating to these schools come before them, upon information or petition, or in other proceedings, to establish schemes for the application of the revenues of these schools, having regard to the intention of the founder.

The 24th section, however, provides that nothing in the act shall prejudice the rights of the ordinary; and it also exempts the universities, and the more important public schools, such as Eton, Winchester, Harrow, Rugby, &c., from the operation of the act.

The following succinct and lucid history of public education for the poor in England was given by the bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, in his visitation charge of 1847:—

“The system of mutual instruction was first promulgated in this island by Dr. Andrew Bell, exactly half a century from the present time; and that invention, when generally known, drew people’s minds to the subject of schools for the children of the poor; for it was thought, that a method by which one person could inspect the instruction of great numbers would reduce so materially the expense, as to render it no longer hopeless to procure some education for all the inhabitants of the country. In the early years of the nineteenth century, this became the subject of earnest discussion and controversy: and with good reason; for it seemed an obvious consequence, that a machinery by which large numbers could be instructed together, would place in the hands of those who directed that instruction a powerful moral engine to affect the minds of the rising generation. The sectaries were not slow in availing themselves of that engine; and as the religious differences of dissenting parents were, by some, considered a reason against their children using the catechism of the Church, it was maintained by them, that nothing should be taught in those large seminaries except such truths as all Christians, of every complexion and denomination, could agree to accept. Many faithful ministers of the Church felt that they would not be justified before God or man in abdicating one of their most essential functions, that of watching the instruction of their young parishioners, and they recoiled from any proposal of compromising Divine truths; accordingly, they were found strenuously to resist that scheme. With the view of directing the education of the poor in the principles of the National Church, in the year 1812 was established the National Society, an institution which has ever since, by various methods, assisted our schools—by contributions towards their erection—by training teachers—by imparting advice and information—and by maintaining consistency and efficiency in an extensive and rather complicated system. It was, I believe, about thirty years ago that this momentous subject acquired increased importance in the public eye, by the reports of an Education Committee of the House of Commons; and it was then first suggested, that an object of such vast consequence as national education claimed the direct assistance of the State, and that nothing less than aid from the public purse could ever compass the great object of universal instruction. But it was not until the year 1833, that the least assistance was rendered by the government or parliament towards that work. Schools had indeed increased in number, and the public mind had become more and more favourable to the undertaking. But the countenance then first given to popular education by parliament, seems to have originated in political considerations. The population of the country had increased with surprising rapidity; and the vast numbers of poor congregated in towns, particularly in the manufacturing and mining districts, left far behind them all the efforts of private benevolence. At the same time, a fearful increase was observed in the amount of crime; and an examination of the unhappy inmates of prisons proved that a great majority were destitute of every kind of instruction: on the other hand, of the educated part of the poorer classes, very few were discovered in the criminal ranks. Such considerations showed the extreme danger of suffering masses of the people to grow up in ignorance of moral and religious duties, and weighed with parliament to make a grant towards building school rooms. The amount was indeed trifling, compared with the demand, being only £20,000 for England and Wales: but the like sum was repeated for five successive years; and, niggardly as these grants have been generally called, it would be ungrateful not to acknowledge that they did cause a great extent of good throughout the country. The money granted by the treasury being proportioned to the sums advanced by private subscriptions, was effectual in stimulating a large amount of individual charity, and thus called into being a multitude of schools 697that could not otherwise have had existence. The treasury grants being conveyed through the National Society to Church schools, and through the British and Foreign Society to Dissenting schools, to meet the sums respectively subscribed, the result was, that no less than five-sixths of the whole were allotted to the former; thereby giving a signal proof of the greater zeal in the cause of education which animated Churchmen.

“However, the experience of so many years too plainly showed that the education, if such it could be called, which was given to the poor, was inadequate and unsatisfactory. The system of mutual instruction, though to a certain extent useful when judiciously directed, was found not to be capable of those wonderful effects upon which sanguine minds had calculated. Besides, the early age at which children were generally deprived of school instruction, through the necessities or the cupidity of their parents, perpetually disappointed the hopes of their intellectual proficiency. But, above all, the inadequate qualification of the masters and mistresses of National Schools precluded all prospect of such an education as might elevate the mind. The smallness of their salaries, mainly depending upon precarious subscriptions, almost excluded persons of ability and energy from situations in which those qualities are peculiarly required. Frequently the instructors of the rising generation were persons who had been unsuccessful in their endeavours to obtain a livelihood in other lines of life, who had never turned their attention to the subject of education, and were destitute of the temper, discernment, and love of the profession, which should be combined in a good teacher; and a few weeks’ attendance in the central school (when funds could be found for that purpose) was seldom sufficient to remedy previous inaptitude, or to confer appropriate habits and address. Against these difficulties, the clergy, feeling that upon them the responsibility was cast, long struggled with exemplary zeal and patience; a state of things which still continues. Many are the cases where the whole pecuniary support of a school, beyond the weekly pence of the children, rests with the minister; and whatever is of any value in the teaching, proceeds from himself, or the members of his family.

“From observation of these and other defects in our system, and from a deep sense of the duty of a Christian nation to bring up its people in Christian principles, the National Society promulgated a new and comprehensive plan, the object of which was to establish, in every diocese, training schools for teachers, to combine them with seminaries for the children of the middle classes, (who had before been unaccountably overlooked in our schemes of national education,) and to give permanence to these institutions by connecting them with the cathedral establishments; while it was hoped, that all Churchmen of influence and education might be interested in the care and promotion of the system, by the formation of diocesan boards of education. This important movement took place in the year 1838; and though the results, as far as it has operated, have been beneficial to the cause of education, yet it must be confessed, that the success of the scheme has not equalled the anticipations of its benevolent and enlightened projectors. The pecuniary support which it has met with has not been hitherto sufficient to carry into execution the contemplated objects to the required extent: the effect, however, has, on the whole, been considerable; and the conviction universally produced on the public mind seems to be, that without an appropriate education to be given to the teachers, qualifying them to conduct the moral culture of the youthful mind, all efforts at useful instruction of the poor will be illusory; and that this is an object which must, at all risks and all cost, be kept in view. Nevertheless, no one can fail to see the difficulty which the circumstances of this country cast in the way of any training system: in particular, the acquirements of the pupils being of such a nature as will qualify them for many other employments better remunerated than the mastership of a charity school, it is always to be feared that the best and ablest proficients may be tempted to desert the profession for which they have been educated, to embark in one more lucrative and alluring.

“In the following year the government made an attempt to take into their own hands the guidance of national education. This was to have been effected by various steps, by the establishment of a model school, and of a school for instructors, (or normal school, as it was termed,) under the authority and direction of a Committee of the Privy Council, who were constituted a board of education, with a great latitude of discretion. The former rule of appropriating grants of public money in a just proportion to voluntary donations was to be no longer observed; but a centralized system of government inspection of schools 698and of the course of instruction was announced. As these measures were proposed by statesmen who had always avowed themselves advocates and supporters of what is termed the British and Foreign system, as they opened a door to the introduction of a course of education in which religion might have little or no share, and as they were joyfully hailed by that party in the country which avowed hostility to the Church, there could be little doubt on the mind of anybody as to their tendency. Though the operation might have been gradual, yet no long time would have passed before the Church was deposed from one of its most important functions, and that upon which its ulterior usefulness among the poorer classes mainly depends—the early instruction of their youth. This must be regarded as the great crisis of the education question, in which the sentiments of all who had thought or interested themselves in the matter found expression. The government plan was upheld by those who wished for schools in which instruction might be confined, as in those of France, to secular knowledge—as well as by those who advocated the notion of dividing religious instruction into general and special, and wished to communicate the former in schools, but to exclude the latter, as bringing into collision conflicting opinions. The prevailing judgment of the public was indicated by petitions to parliament, of which about 3000 were against the proposals, and about 100 in their favour. The measure was only carried in the House of Commons, with all the weight of ministerial influence, by a majority of two, while in the Upper House resolutions condemnatory of it were voted by a majority of no less than 111; and an address was carried up to the throne by the whole House, praying her Majesty not to enforce a system which interfered with the province of the Established Church. It rarely happens that upon any question the preponderance of public opinion throughout all classes has been expressed so decidedly, and at the same time so deliberately. Its first result was of a very remarkable character. The distinguished and eloquent statesman, the founder of the British and Foreign School Society, who had signalized the whole of his public life by a zealous and energetic advocacy of the comprehensive system of education, was so convinced of the hopelessness of overcoming the prevalent feeling in favour of the Church as general instructress, that he published a pamphlet, to persuade those who had co-operated with him for thirty years in that course to acquiesce in the decision which public opinion, as well as parliament, had pronounced against them; and urged, with his usual force of argument, that they would best show themselves the sincere and patriotic advocates for the diffusion of knowledge, by agreeing at once to a ‘Church Education Bill.’

“It is gratifying to contemplate the moderation with which the Church used the triumph of opinion declared in her favour, and the substantial proof which she gave of the sincerity of her zeal for intellectual improvement. The deplorable ignorance in which multitudes were suffered to grow up in the populous manufacturing and mining districts, and the inadequacy of any voluntary efforts in their favour, had been used as the great argument for devolving all care of them and their instruction upon the State; accordingly, a special fund was immediately subscribed, and intrusted to the National Society, for maintaining schools in those populous districts, amounting to not less than £150,000, five times the sum voted at the time by parliament for the whole kingdom. A disposition was likewise shown to meet, as far as possible, the views of the government in regard to schools whose erection had been aided by parliamentary grants; it being agreed that they should be open to government inspection, on condition that the inspectors of Church schools were to be persons recommended by the archbishops of the respective provinces.

“During the last seven years the system of inspection has been in progress, and, I think, with singular benefit to the cause of education. The examination of a number of schools by able and intelligent observers (and such qualifications the inspectors eminently display) has thrown much light upon a subject in which there must ever be some practical difficulty. Through a comparison of different cases, it becomes evident what methods are most successful in practice; and it can be satisfactorily ascertained in which instances failure is attributable to the plan, and in which to the execution. The inspectors’ reports, comprising a mine of valuable information, will be found in the volumes of the Committee of Council, which also communicate a variety of plans for schoolrooms and school-houses, directions useful for building and conducting schools, improvements introduced from time to time, and a large body of economics conducive 699to the improvement of humble education. Among all the truths which have been established upon this interesting subject, the most important is, that the instructor should himself have received early training, not merely that he may be qualified to conduct the mechanical process of a school, but may have such acquaintance with the tempers and characters of children, and such skill in managing them, as experience alone can confer. Above all, it is necessary that he should himself be thoroughly imbued with religious principles, without which there is little chance of his imparting that tone of Christian discipline which should pervade the whole of his intercourse with the scholars. That there may not be wanting a supply of fit and able persons to fill these stations, it is particularly desirable that, whenever a boy is distinguished in a national school for ability and good disposition, he should be retained beyond the usual age, both for his own improvement and for the service of the school; and if means can be found to constitute him a stipendiary monitor, the real benefits of the monitorial system will be perceived, without the objections to which it has been found liable. Such a pupil may have further instruction after school hours, and, if his manners and conduct correspond with his ability, may become an apprentice teacher; he will then be qualified as a recipient of the higher instruction communicated at a training establishment for schoolmasters, or, as it is the fashion to call it, a normal school.”

Mr. Johnston, in his “England in the Middle of the Nineteenth Century,” published 1851, after quoting this, proceeds to say, “The hopes which the good bishop entertained of a continued cordiality of co-operation between the National Society, as the organ of the Church, and the Committee of Privy Council as the educational department of the civil government, have not been quite fulfilled. The parliamentary grants of public money in support of education were indeed increased, having been, from 1839 to 1842, £30,000 a-year; in 1843 and 1844, £40,000 a-year; in 1845, £75,000; in 1846, £100,000; and in 1847 and 1848, £125,000 a-year; but in 1846 the Committee of Privy Council began to insist upon certain conditions of management in the Church of England schools assisted with public money, which led to a correspondence with the National Society, extending over a period of three years, and terminating in a resolution of the Society not to recommend to promoters of schools to accept the management clauses insisted upon by the Committee of Privy Council. The correspondence on both sides is distinguished by considerable caution and much courtesy. In several points the Committee of Privy Council readily conceded what was required by the National Society, but in the main points of imposing more restriction upon the promoters of schools than the National Society thought desirable, and in refusing to allow the bishop to exercise authority over the Church of England schools, except in what concerned directly the religious instruction of the pupils, the Committee of Privy Council continued to oppose the views of the Church. The actual and officially recognised difference between the state of affairs as regards this subject, at the time the Bishop of Gloucester delivered his charge and at the present time (1850), is this,—that whereas the Committee of the National Society in 1846 and 1847 agreed with the Committee of Privy Council jointly to recommend certain management clauses to promoters of schools, they now have declined to recommend such clauses, and this they have done on the following grounds:—In times past the Committee of the National Society never interfered with the constitution of schools, but left them to be determined by the promoters. It was found, however, that in very numerous instances the constitution chosen by the promoters was defective. At the time mentioned the Committee of Privy Council asked the National Society to recommend certain clauses, to which the Society assented, with this proviso—that promoters of schools should have the same liberty of choice as had hitherto been conceded to them by the Committee of Privy Council and the National Society. The Society, however, found, in the beginning of 1848, that by recommendation the Committee of Privy Council meant enforcement, and that no new school would be aided by the Committee of Privy Council in the building, which would not receive one of the four management clauses; and not only that, but the one particular clause out of the four which the Committee of Privy Council thought best for that particular school. Upon this the Committee of the National Society remonstrated against what they considered an infringement of reasonable liberty, and they also remarked upon several points in the clauses which in their opinion would be made better by alteration. On most of these points the Committee of Privy Council gave way; 700but on the question of liberty, that Committee would not give way, and they still continue to enforce one of these management clauses where public money is granted, and that one selected by themselves. Therefore the Committee of the National Society declined to continue to recommend the clauses; but they have not ceased to give the same proportion of aid out of their funds to all cases of school building, whether aided by the Committee of Council or not; and therefore whether adopting one of the management clauses or not. The actual and formal breach between the National Society and the Committee of Privy Council has not gone beyond this. In respect to general matters the same interchange of communication as heretofore goes on between the government department and the National Society. The training institutions supported by the Society are, as in times past, examined by her Majesty’s inspectors of schools, and certificates of merit awarded to the pupils therein. Payments are also made to these institutions out of the parliamentary grant in pursuance of such certificates, and the annual grant of £1000 towards the support of those institutions is still paid by the Committee of Council.”

Thus matters stood until 1852, when the sum granted by parliament to be applied in aid of schools by the Committee of Council was £160,000 for the year. At the same time the lords of the council made an alteration in the minutes governing the appropriation of aid to the building or enlarging of Church of England schools; leaving it optional with founders who petitioned for aid, either to take it upon such conditions as previously existed, or upon certain new conditions. These new conditions give the clergyman of the parish or district more direct authority over the religious and moral instruction of the pupils than was expressed in the previous conditions, and they enable him to prohibit, (on religious or moral grounds,) the use of any book, and to suspend the teacher from his functions, pending the decision of the question by the bishop of the diocese, whose decision is to be final.

The new minutes of 1852 were not maintained by the succeeding government. The grant for public education in 1853 was £260,000, and in 1854, £263,000, exclusive of the grant for Ireland. In 1852, by the 15 & 16 Vic. c. 49, the acts referred to in this article relating to sites of schools, were extended ta sites for theological training colleges.

SCHOOLMEN. The title given to a class of learned theologians who flourished in the middle ages. They derive their name from the schools attached to the cathedrals or universities in which they lectured. Some make Lanfranc (William the Conqueror’s archbishop of Canterbury) the first author of scholastic theology; others, the famous Abelard; others, his master Roscelinus; and others again his pupil Peter Lombard. But the most distinguished of the Schoolmen lived in the next century. The scholastic theology was the first attempt at forming a systematic theology. Their first step towards a systematic theology was to collect the sentences of the Fathers; the next step was to harmonize them by reducing them to principles. This could only be done by the application of philosophy to divinity, for philosophy unfolds the principles of reasoning. The Schoolmen, therefore, had recourse to the reigning philosophy, that of Aristotle; and Thomas Aquinas, in his Secunda Secundæ, i. e. the second part of the second division of the “Sum of Theology,” has given the best and clearest exposition of Aristotle’s Ethics to be met with out of Aristotle himself. The great error of the Schoolmen, which has occasioned the ruin of their theology, was this, that, instead of taking the Bible only for their basis, they took the Church for their first authority, and made the Bible only a part of the Church’s teaching.

The doctrine of the Schoolmen, of our deserving grace of congruity, is censured in our 13th Article.

The Schoolmen were:

1. Albertus Magnus, a Dominican friar, born in Suabia. He was educated in the university of Paris, and was Thomas Aquinas’s master. Pope Alexander IV. sent for him to Rome, where he officiated as master of the sacred palace: and Urban IV. forced him to accept of the bishopric of Ratisbon. He died at Cologne, in the year 1280. Albert wrote a great number of books; and, in those days of ignorance, was accused of magic, and of having a brazen head, which gave him answers.

2. Bonaventure, surnamed the Seraphic Doctor, born at Bagnarea, a city of Tuscany, in 1221. He entered into the order of the Minims, in 1233, and followed his studies in the university of Paris, where he afterwards taught divinity, and took his doctor’s degree with St. Thomas Aquinas in 1255. Next year he was elected general of his order; and Gregory X. made him a cardinal in 1272. He assisted at the first sessions of the General Council of Lyons, 701held in 1279, and died before it was ended. His works are very numerous, and equally replete with piety and learning.

3. Thomas Aquinas, surnamed the Angelical Doctor, was descended of the kings of Sicily and Aragon, and was born in the year 1224, in the castle of Aquin, which is in the territory of Laboré in Italy. After having been educated in the monastery of Mount Cassino, he was sent to Naples, where he studied Humanity and Philosophy. In 1244, he went to Cologne to study under Albertus Magnus. From thence he went to Paris, where he took his doctor’s degree in 1255. He returned into Italy in 1263; and, after having taught Scholastic Divinity in most of the universities of that country, he settled at last at Naples. In 1274, being sent for by Gregory X., to assist in the Council of Lyons, he fell sick on the road, and died in the monastery of Fossanova, near Terracina. Among the great number of his works, which make seventeen volumes in folio, his Summa is the most famous, being a large collection of theological questions.

4. Scotus, or John Duns Scotus, surnamed the Subtile Doctor, was a Scotchman by birth, and came to Paris about the year 1300, where he took his degrees, and taught in that city. He particularly taught the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin. From Paris he went to Boulogne, where he died soon after, in 1303. According to the custom of the times, he wrote many philosophical and theological works, in which he valued himself upon maintaining opinions contrary to those of Thomas Aquinas. This gave rise to the opposite sects of the Scotists and Thomists.

5. William Ocham, surnamed the Singular Doctor, was born in a village of that name, in the county of Surrey, in England. He was the head of the sect called the Nominalists. He flourished in the university of Paris, in the beginning of the fourteenth century, and wrote a book concerning the power of the Church and of the State, to defend Philip the Fair against Pope Boniface VIII. He was one of the grand adversaries of Pope John XXII., who excommunicated him for taking part with the anti-pope Peter of Corbario. He ended his days at Munich, the court of the Elector of Bavaria, who had received him kindly.

6. Raymond Lully, descended of an illustrious family in Catalonia, was born in the island of Majorca in 1236. He was of the order of the Minims, and had acquired a great knowledge of the Oriental languages. He invented a new method of reasoning, but could not obtain leave from Honorius IV. to teach it at Rome. Then he resolved to execute the design he had long formed of endeavouring the conversion of the Mohammedans. Having gone to Tunis, he had a conference with the Saracens, in which he run the risk of his life, and escaped only upon condition he would go out of Africa. He came to Naples, where he taught his method till the year 1290. At Genoa he wrote several books. From thence he went to Paris, where he taught his art. After several travels and adventures, he returned to Majorca, from whence he went over into Africa, where he was imprisoned by the Saracens, and so ill-treated, that he died of his wounds. He had found out the secret of making a jargon proper to discourse of everything, without learning anything in particular, by ranging certain general terms under different classes.

7. Durandus, surnamed the Most resolving Doctor, was of St. Pourcain, a village in the diocese of Clermont, in Auvergne, and flourished in the university of Paris from 1313 to 1318, in which year he was named by the pope, bishop of Puy, from whence he was transferred to the bishopric of Meaux, which he governed to the time of his death.

8. To these may be added, Giles, archbishop of Bourges, surnamed the Doctor who had a good Foundation; Peter Aureolus, archbishop of Aix, styled the Eloquent Doctor; Augustin Triumphus, of Ancona, who wrote the Milleloquium of St. Augustin; Albert of Padua; Francis Mairon, of Digne in Provence; Robert Holkot, an English divine; Thomas Bradwardin, an Englishman, surnamed the Profound Doctor, author of a treatise de Causa Dei against Pelagius; and Gregory of Rimini, author of two commentaries on the First and Second Books of Sentences.

SCOTLAND. (See Church in Scotland.)

SCREEN. Any separation of one part of a church from another, generally of light construction, tabernacle work, open arcading, or wood tracery. The screens separating side chapels from the chancel, nave, or transept, are usually called parcloses. (See Rood-loft and Reredos.)

SCRIPTURE. (See Bible.) “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical 702books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

“Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.

Genesis.

Exodus.

Leviticus.

Numbers.

Deuteronomy.

Joshua.

Judges.

Ruth.

The First Book of Samuel.

The Second Book of Samuel.

The First Book of Kings.

The Second Book of Kings.

The First Book of Chronicles.

The Second Book of Chronicles.

The First Book of Esdras.

The Second Book of Esdras.

The Book of Esther.

The Book of Job.

The Psalms.

The Proverbs.

Ecclesiastes, or Preacher.

Cantica, or Songs of Solomon.

Four Prophets the Greater.

Twelve Prophets the Less.

“And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life, and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine: such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras.

The Fourth Book of Esdras.

The Book of Tobias.

The Book of Judith.

The rest of the Book of Esther.

The Book of Wisdom.

Jesus, the Son of Sirach.

Baruch the Prophet.

The Song of the Three Children.

The Story of Susanna.

Of Bel and the Dragon.

The Prayer of Manasses.

The First Book of Maccabees.

The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them canonical.”—Article VI.

The Jews acknowledge the Books of the Old Testament only, which both Jews and Christians agree were collected into one body, except the Book of Malachi, by Ezra. They had been preserved during the Babylonish captivity, and the collection was made by him on the return from it. He divided the Bible, (מקרה) mikra, lesson, lecture, or Scripture, Βίβλος, (the Book,) into three parts: 1. The Law, containing the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses; 2. The Prophets, containing thirteen books; and 3. The Hagiographa, four books, making in the whole twenty-two, the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, but which the Jews now make twenty-four.

The first (the Law) was divided into fifty-four sections, for the several sabbaths, (with the intercalated month,) and these sections into verses. The division into chapters, which were originally subdivided by letters, not figures as now, is of late date, and was done to facilitate the use of concordances.

Some Books are cited in the Old Testament which are now lost, unless the same as others, under different names; as, 1. “The Book of Jasher” (Josh. x. 13; 2 Sam. i. 18); 2. “The Book of the Wars of the Lord” (Numb. xxi. 14); 3. “The Book of Chronicles or Days,” containing the annals of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, frequently cited in the Books of Kings and Chronicles; 4. The remainder of Solomon’s “three thousand proverbs,” and “a thousand and five songs,” and the whole of his writings on natural history, “of trees,” “of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes” (1 Kings iv. 32, 33); and 5. Probably the Lamentations of Jeremiah on the death of Josiah, as this subject seems not included in the book now extant. Some think that the first, the Book of Jasher, is the same as the second; others, the Books of Moses; and others think the first three are the same, and were public records deposited in the house of God. It is very probable that the references to these books, from the sense of them, were subsequent introductions.

Hebrew was the language of the Old Testament generally, but Ezra, ch. iv., from verse 8 to ch. vi. verse 19, and ch. vii., from verse 12 to 27, Jeremiah, ch. x. verse 11, and Daniel, from ch. ii. verse 4, to end of ch. vii., are in Chaldee. The Books of the New Testament were written in Greek, except, only, it has been questioned whether St. Matthew did not write in Hebrew, or Syriac, the language then spoken in Judea; and St. Mark in Latin; and whether the Epistle to the Hebrews was not first written in Hebrew.

Whether the art of writing had its origin in the communication of God with Moses on Mount Sinai, is doubtful. Some imagine that the passage, Gen. xxiii. 17, is an actual abridgment of the conveyance 703of the field of Ephron made to Abraham. It is certainly not improbable that the patriarchs might have compiled records of their time, and that by inspiration; and that Moses might collect these, as Ezra did in after-times. And this is argued by some from a supposed difference of style. Moses himself was expressly directed to write by way of record; a custom which continued under the Judges and the Kings, some of the latter of whom collected and arranged the books then existing; as it is clear Hezekiah did the proverbs of Solomon. The prophecies of Jeremiah, we know, were publicly read; and when Ezra made his collection, the number of copies was great, and the difference existing between them is supposed to form the marginal readings, amounting in all to 840. It was after his time that translations began to be made.

The preservation of the sacred Scriptures, and of the genuineness and integrity of the text, seems almost miraculous. It was in order to this that the Masora was composed, by which was ascertained, with stupendous labour, the number of verses, of words, and even of letters, contained in the twenty-four books of the Old Testament, and in every section and subdivision; and also the words supposed to be changed, superfluous letters, repetitions of verses and words, significations different or analogous, mute letters, and various other particulars and mysteries.

The Targum (explanation) is the Chaldee Paraphrase; being this rather than literal translations of the books of the Old Testament, and by which, when the Hebrew text was read in the synagogue, it was explained to the people. The first Targum was that of Jonathan, about thirty years before Christ, on the greater and lesser Prophets. The next is that of Onkelos, nearly contemporary, or something later, on the Books of Moses only, short and simple, and the most esteemed. The Targum of Joseph the Blind, on the Hagiographa, is more modern, in a corrupt Chaldee, and less regarded. The Targum of Jerusalem, on the Pentateuch only, is very imperfect, and supposed by some to be only a fragment. Besides these there is a Targum falsely ascribed to Jonathan, on the Pentateuch, evidently not older than the 7th century: the Targums on Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamentations, Ruth, Esther: three Targums on Esther, and a Targum on the Chronicles, discovered in 1680: all these are of late date, not earlier than the 6th century. On Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, there is no Targum.

Most of the MSS. of the Hebrew Bible at present in existence were collated by and for Dr. Kennicott, 250 by himself, and 350 by another, being from 480 to 800 years old. Since this more than 400 others, of the 7th or 8th century, have been discovered. Dr. Rossi followed up Dr. Kennicott’s work.

The first printed edition of the whole Bible was in 1488; the first Latin translation was by Munster, in 1534. The Septuagint was probably the first Greek version; to which followed those of Symmachus and Theodotion, with three others by unknown authors. The Septuagint, (a translation supposed to have been by seventy-two Jews,) called for conciseness “the Seventy,” was made in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 277, at an expense of above £136,000. There are four principal modern editions: the Complutensian, A. D. 1514–1517; the Aldine, 1518; the Roman of Sixtus V., 1587; and Grabe’s, printed at Oxford, 1707–1720. In 1798, Dr. Holmes began publishing an edition at Oxford, carried on since his death by Mr. Parsons, on the plan of Kennicott’s Hebrew Bible with the various readings in the margin.

The first edition of the New Testament in Greek was the Complutensian, 1514–1517, though not published till 1522. Next that of Erasmus, in 1516. The editions of the Stephenses (1546–1550) are admirable for their beauty. The editions of Beza, 1565–1598, and Elzevir, 1624, are also to be noticed. The celebrated edition, with various readings, of the Rev. John Mill, was published at Oxford in 1707, after the labour of thirty years, and the readings amounted to 30,000! That of Wetstein, at Amsterdam, in 1751, with a far greater number; and that of Griesbach, at Halle, in 1775–1777, with a select collection of these readings.

With this great number of various readings may be mentioned the increase of parallel passages, in the English editions of the Bible; being, from the edition 1611, when they were first introduced, to Bishop Wilson’s Bible, A. D. 1785, from 8980 to 66,955. And these in the “Concordance of Parallels,” published afterwards by the Rev. C. Cruttwell, the editor of this last Bible, are probably three or four times the number.

SCRIPTURE, CANON OF. The present canon of the Roman Church was made in the fourth session of the Council of Trent, at which, besides cardinals, there were present no more than four archbishops and thirty-three bishops; of 704which number all but eight were Italians.

These men, who were as ill qualified by their learning as by their numbers to rule so great a question, were not even unanimous in the conclusion which they adopted. Some contended that the books ought to be placed in separate classes, the one to be used for piety, the other for the establishment of doctrine, which is the rule of the English Church. Seripando, the most learned of the cardinals present, even wrote a book to maintain this view; while nearly half the members of the council were opposed to the anathema by which the decree is enforced.

The main authority which has been urged in favour of the Roman canon, is that of the Council of Carthage. It is not however agreed when this synod was held; and, whatever date may be assigned, its decrees have no authority beyond the province of Africa, having never been incorporated in the universal code. To use the words of Bishop Cosin, “the question is, whether ever any Church or ancient author, during these first ages, can be showed to have professedly made such a catalogue of the true and authentic books of Scripture, as the Council of Trent hath lately addressed and obtruded upon the world: which will never be done. In the mean while they all speak so perspicuously for our Church canon, that there can be no denial of their agreement herein with us.”

The Apostolical Constitutions, which some writers assign to Clement, bishop of Rome, and which were undoubtedly written very early, do not admit in the canon those books which we call apocryphal. In the second century we find that Justin Martyr never cites them for Scripture. Origen and Tertullian, in the third, agree in rejecting them. In the fourth, we have a multitude of the greatest writers, who are clearly against the Church of Rome on this point; such as Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary, Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and Jerome; besides the Council of Nice at the beginning of the century, and towards the close of it the Council of Laodicea, whose canons were incorporated among those of the universal Church. The great Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria, of Antioch and Constantinople, pronounced on the same side; and even in the Roman Church itself we have the same testimony from Gregory I., as well as of many others who are held to be its chief authorities. Cardinal Caietan, who died only a few years before the meeting of the council, following St. Jerome, maintained the distinction between the canonical and apocryphal books, and the influence of his opinion was very considerable, even at Trent. But the use of the Apocrypha was well known to be indispensable to Roman theologians, and if it were not admitted to form part of Scripture, no Divine sanction could be pleaded for purgatory, the canonization of saints, or the worship of images and relics. In this, as well as many other instances, the Roman Church has not scrupled to violate primitive tradition, in order to maintain its uncatholic doctrines and practices.

SCRIPTURES, INSPIRATION OF. (See Bible, Revelation.) “All Scripture,” we are told, “is given by inspiration of God.” To understand which expression we would remark, that Divine inspiration, or the supernatural influence of God upon the mind, to form it for intellectual improvement, may be, 1. An inspiration of superintendency, by which God preserves a writer commissioned by him to communicate his will, from error in those points which relate to his commission. It does not follow that the writer shall be preserved from error in what relates to grammar, or natural philosophy; but he is preserved from error in all that God has commissioned him to reveal. 2. An inspiration of suggestion, which precedes the former, and takes place when God doth, as it were, speak directly to the mind of the inspired person, making such discoveries to it as it could not but by miracle obtain. This has been done in various ways, by immediate impression on the mind, by dreams and visions represented to the imagination; at other times by sounds formed in the air, or by visible appearances.

The New Testament was written by a superintendent inspiration. The apostles were, according to Christ’s promise, furnished with all necessary powers for the discharge of their office, by an extraordinary effusion of the Holy Spirit upon them at the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 4, &c.); and a second time (Acts iv. 31).

We may assure ourselves that they were hereby competently furnished for all those services which were of great importance for the spread and edification of the Church, and of so great difficulty as to need supernatural assistance.

Considering how uncertain a thing oral tradition is, and how soon the most public and notorious facts are corrupted by it, it was impossible that the Christian religion could be preserved in any tolerable degree of purity, without a written account of the 705facts and doctrines preached, by the apostles; and yet, on the other hand, we can hardly suppose that God would suffer a doctrine introduced in so extraordinary a manner to be corrupted and lost.

The discourses of Christ were several of them so long, and some likewise of so curious and delicate a nature, that it is not to be imagined the apostles should have been able exactly to record them, especially so many years after they were delivered, and amidst such a variety of cares and dangers, without such extraordinary Divine assistance, or without an inspiration of superintendency.

Many of the doctrines which the apostles delivered in their writings were so sublime and so new, that as they could not have been known at first otherwise than by an inspiration of suggestion, so they would need an inspiration of superintendency in delivering an accurate account of them.

There is reason to believe, from the promise of Christ, that such parts of the New Testament as were written by the apostles were written by an inspiration of superintendency.

It is not to be thought that persons, so eminent for humility, piety, humanity, and other virtues, as the apostles were, would have spoken of their writings as the words and the commands of the Lord as the test of truth and falsehood, and gloried so much in being under the direction of the Spirit, if they had not certainly known themselves to be so in their writings, as well as in their preaching; and the force of this argument is greatly illustrated, by recollecting the extraordinary miraculous powers with which they were honoured, while making exhortations and pretensions of this kind, as was hinted above.

There was an ancient tradition that St. Mark and St. Luke were in the number of the seventy disciples who were furnished with extraordinary powers from Christ, and received from him promises of assistance much resembling those made to the apostles (compare Luke x. 9, 16, 19); and if it were so, as the arguments used to prove both the understanding and integrity of the apostles may be in great measure applied to them, we may, on the principles laid down, conclude that they also had some inspiration of superintendency. But there is much reason to regard that received and ancient tradition in the Christian Church, that St. Mark wrote his Gospel instructed by St. Peter, and St. Luke his by St. Paul’s assistance; which, if it be allowed, their writings will stand nearly on the same footing with those of Peter and Paul.

It may not be improper here just to mention the internal marks of a Divine original in Scripture. The excellence of its doctrines, the spirituality and elevation of its design, the majesty and simplicity of its style, the agreement of its parts, and its efficacy upon the hearts and consciences of men, concur to give us a high idea of it, and corroborate the external arguments for its being written by a superintendent inspiration at least.

There has been in the Christian Church, from its earliest ages, a constant tradition, that these books were written by the extraordinary assistance of the Spirit, which must at least amount to superintendent inspiration.

With respect to the Old Testament, the books we have inherited from the Jews were always regarded by them as authentic and inspired. And our blessed Lord and his apostles were so far from accusing the Jews of superstition, in the regard which they paid to the writings of the Old Testament, or from charging the scribes and Pharisees (whom Christ, on all proper occasions, censured so freely) with having introduced into the sacred volume mere human compositions, that, on the contrary, they not only recommend the diligent and constant perusal of them, as of the greatest importance to men’s eternal happiness, but speak of them as Divine oracles, and as written by an extraordinary influence of the Divine Spirit upon the minds of the authors. (Vide John v. 39; x. 35; Mark xii. 24; Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10; v. 17, 18; xxi. 42; xxii. 29, 31, 43; xxiv. 15; xxvi. 54, 56; Luke i. 67, 69, 70; x. 26, 27; xvi. 31; Acts iv. 25; xvii. 11; xviii. 24–28; Rom. iii. 2; xv. 4; xvi. 26; Gal. iii. 8; 1 Tim. v. 17, 18; 2 Tim. iii. 14–17; James ii. 8; iv. 5; 1 Pet. i. 10–12; 2 Pet. i. 19–21.) To this list may be added many other places,—on the whole, more than five hundred,—in which the sacred writers of the New Testament quote and argue from those of the Old, in such a manner as they would surely not have done, if they had apprehended there were room to allege that it contained at least a mixture of what was spurious and of no authority.—Lowth on Inspiration. Tillotson’s Sermons. Doddridge’s Lectures.

The argument of the Divine inspiration of Scripture as an induction from its adaptation to the nature of man—even as regards those parts of the Old Testament which have been most obnoxious to cavil—is ably maintained in the Bampton Lectures 706of 1817, preached by the Rev. John Miller, from which the following is extracted:—“Although Scripture presents the most humiliating portraiture of human nature, and that intentionally, to lead man into a knowledge of himself, as the subject of its operation; it should be added that the Bible does not exhibit an unmixed image of evil, inasmuch as, if it did, it would not be that exact resemblance of the character of man, which it is now affirmed to be. Nor do I, in subjoining this qualification, feel a consciousness either of having carried the main proposition unreasonably far, to countenance a partial construction, or of now adding any such inconsistent exception as may neutralize or destroy its force.

“The representation of evil was intended, and is necessary, for the analysis of doctrine. We hold the opinion, that a man is a being, ‘very far gone from an original righteousness,’ in which he was created. And it is maintained that the whole substance of Scripture so fully justifies this doctrine as to be quite inexplicable, and therefore, as a record of Divine wisdom, inadmissible, without it.

“It is, however, contended also, that with this doctrine, found to be involved in the substance of its histories, and harmonizing with the end of its great provisions, Scripture commends itself, in a peculiar manner, to our belief and acceptation, as a record which, while it extends to the very root of our disease, and so alone points out the true method of recovery from it, falls in thereby with the observations of our own personal experience.

“But such involvement of a general truth by no means necessarily fixes or defines the measure or degree of sin in individuals acting in various stages of moral responsibility, and subject to the influences, not only of rational motives, but (as would seem, more or less even from the beginning) to those of an infused grace! And it may confidently be maintained, that the two several propositions now affirmed of Holy Writ, viz. that it gives a most humiliating view of man, and yet not one of unmixed evil, are not only not inconsistent, but explanatory one of the other. The one is specially profitable for ‘doctrine,’ the other for ‘instruction in righteousness.’ For Scripture not to have discovered a full and intimate acquaintance with the extent and quality of evil itself, would have substracted from our sure persuasion of its perfect insight into truth. Upon the other hand, to have displayed the operation of that evil otherwise than as it is seen practically existing in its effects, would not have been to give that real likeness of ourselves, which we have a claim to look for in a record offering itself to be our faithful guide. Hence, in the first case, without the darker lineaments of the Bible, how could we rightly have arrived at that true doctrinal statement, which now affirms the general existence of an extreme unsoundness in the constitution of human nature, if that which is in man can only be developed adequately, or inferred correctly, through scrutiny of the worst deeds which man has done? How, in the second—while we consent entirely to the truth of this broad abstract statement of the nature of man—could we consent with willing minds to take our sole or only chief instruction in the ways of righteousness, from guidance which should represent us all as being just alike, at any or at every moment of our lives, when we are certain that the practical appearances of evil show very many gradations, and put on very different aspects, in the condition of different individuals? * * * If Scripture does indeed thus show us to ourselves, and we cannot deny the truth of the resemblance; if it neither conceals deformity to tempt us, nor yet drives us into extremity, so as to overwhelm us; if it neither threatens nor promises too much, could it have proceeded either from one that did not know us, or from one that did not love us?”

SEALED BOOKS. By the Act 13 & 14 Car. II. (which ratified the last revision of the Prayer Book,) c. 4, sect. 28, it was enacted that the dean and chapter of every cathedral and collegiate church, should obtain under the great seal of England a true and perfect printed copy of the above-mentioned Act and Prayer Book, to be kept by them in safety for ever, and to be produced in any court of record when required; and that like copies should be delivered into the respective courts of Westminster, and the Tower of London: which books so to be exemplified under the great seal, were to be examined by persons appointed by the king, and compared with the original book annexed to the Act: these persons having power to correct and amend in writing any error; certifying the examination and collation under their hands and seals: “which said books, and every one of them, shall be taken, adjudged, and expounded to be good, and available in the law to all intents and purposes whatsoever, and shall be accounted as good records as this book itself heretofore annexed,” &c.

Mr. Stephens, in his late edition of the 707Common Prayer Book, with notes, has given a fac-simile text of the original black letter Prayer Books, published after the last Review, with all the corrections of the commissioners carefully marked. The sealed books which he collated for this purpose, are those for the Chancery, Queen’s Bench, Common Pleas, Exchequer, St. Paul’s, Christ Church Oxford, Ely, and the Tower of London.

SECONDARIES. A general name for the inferior members of cathedrals, as vicars choral, &c.: the clerici secundæ formæ, that is, of the second or lower range of stalls, called the bas chœur in France. The priest vicars and minor canons were sometimes included in the superior form. Some of the lay singers at Exeter are so called. Sometimes the term was applied to the assistant priest in course, even though not of the second form. At Hereford the second vicar who assists in chanting the Litany is the “secondary.”

SECT. (From seco, Lat., to cut; being analogous to the word schism, derived from the Greek σχίζω, which has the same meaning.) A religious community following some particular master, instead of adhering to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Thus Calvinists are the sect following Calvin; Wesleyans the sect following Wesley. We are to remember that we are expressly forbidden in Scripture thus to call any man master: one is our master, Jesus Christ, the righteous.

SECULAR CLERGY. In those Churches in which there are monasteries, the clergy attached to those monasteries are called Regulars, the other clergy are styled Seculars. In our Church, before the Reformation, the number of Regulars was very great; but, since the Reformation, we have only had Secular clergy. The canons of such cathedrals of the old foundation as were not monastic, were called Secular.

SEDILIA. Seats near an altar, almost universally on the south side, for the ministers officiating at the holy eucharist. They are generally three in number, for the celebrant, epistoler, and gospeller, but vary from one to five.

SEE. (Latin, sedes.) The seat of episcopal dignity and jurisdiction where the bishop has his throne, or cathedra.

SELAH. An untranslated Hebrew word, recurring several times in the Psalms, and in Habakkuk iii., on the meaning of which there are many opinions. It is most probably a direction to raise the voice, or make some change in the instrumental performance at certain passages, and is merely a musical notation, connected however, as all proper musical expression must be, with the sense.

SEMI-ARIANS. The Arian sect was divided into two principal parties: the one of which adhering more closely to the opinion of their master, maintained that the Son of God was unlike the Father, Ἀνόμοιας, and of this party was Eunomius: the other party refused to receive the word consubstantial, yet acknowledged the Son of God Ὁμοιούσιος, of a like substance or essence with the Father, and therefore were called Semi-Arians, that is, half Arians; this party made the majority in the Councils of Rimini and Seleucia.

SEMI-PELAGIANS, or MASSILIENSES. A sect of heretics, who endeavoured to find a medium betwixt the Pelagians and the orthodox; they had their origin about 430 in France, (hence the name Massiliens, from Massilia, now Marseilles). Their principal favourers were Cassianus, a disciple of Chrysostom; Faustus, abbot of Lirinum; Vincentius, a Gallic writer, whom St. Prosper answered, &c. Their agreement with the Pelagians was in the power of free-will, at least as to the beginning of faith and conversion, and to the co-operation of God and man, grace and nature, as to predestination, from foreknowledge and universal grace, and the possibility of the apostasy of the saints. Some of them also would modify those opinions, and maintained only the predestination of infants from a foreknowledge of the life they would lead. The great opposers of this heresy were St. Augustine, Fulgentius, &c. The original of the predestinarian heresy in this age is denied by Jansenius and others, as well as Protestants, and looked upon as a fiction of the Semi-Pelagians.

SEMI-PREBENDARIES. (See Demi-Prebendaries.)

SEMINARIES, in Popish countries, are certain colleges, appointed for the instruction and education of young persons, destined for the sacred ministry. The first institution of such places is ascribed to St. Augustine. And the Council of Trent decrees, that children, exceeding twelve years of age, shall be brought up, and instructed in common, to qualify them for the ecclesiastical state; and that there shall be a seminary of such belonging to each cathedral, under the direction of the bishop.

In the seminaries of France none are taken in but young persons, ready to study theology, and to be ordained. And for the maintenance of these seminaries certain benefices are allotted, or else the 708clergy of the diocese are obliged to maintain them. These colleges are furnished with halls for the public exercises, and little chambers or cells, where each student retires, studies, and prays apart. Such is the seminary of St. Sulpicius at Paris.

In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the Roman Catholics projected the founding English seminaries abroad, that from thence they might be furnished with missionaries to perpetuate and increase their communion. Accordingly the college of Douay was founded in 1569, at the expense of Philip II., king of Spain; and Dr. William Allen, an Englishman, was made head of it. In the year 1579, a college was founded at Rome for the same purpose, by Gregory XIII., who settled 4000 crowns per annum for the subsistence of the society. The famous Robert Parsons, an English Jesuit, was rector of this college. King Philip founded another of these nurseries at Valladolid in the year 1589, and one at Seville in 1593. The same prince founded St. Omers in Artois, A. D. 1596. In the next century more seminaries were established, at Madrid, Louvain, Liege, and Ghent.

The two colleges of Douay and Rome received such great encouragement, that some hundreds of priests were sent off from thence into England. And to engage the members of these societies more firmly, they obliged them, at their admission, to take the following oath: “I, A. B., one bred in this English college, considering how great benefits God hath bestowed upon me, but then especially when he brought me out of my own country, so infected with heresy, and made me a member of the Catholic Church; as also desiring with a thankful heart to improve so great a mercy of God; have resolved to offer myself wholly up to Divine service, as much as I may, to fulfil the end for which this our college was founded. I promise, therefore, and swear, in the presence of Almighty God, that I am prepared from mine heart, with the assistance of Divine grace, in due time to receive holy orders, and to return to England, to convert the souls of my countrymen and kindred, when, and as often as, it shall seem good to the superior of this college.” As a further encouragement, Pope Pius V. sent his brief to the students of these colleges, for undertaking the mission into England. And that they might act without clashing, and with the better harmony, he put them all under the direction of Dr. Allen, afterwards Cardinal.

By a statute of Queen Elizabeth it is made a præmunire to contribute to the maintenance of a Popish seminary. And by one of King James I., no persons are to go, or be sent, to Popish seminaries, to be instructed or educated, under divers penalties and disabilities mentioned in the statute.

The houses of the society De Propagandâ Fide, established for the preparing ecclesiastics for missionaries among infidels and heretics, are also called seminaries. The principal of these is that at Rome, called the Apostolic College or Seminary, or the seminary De Propagandâ Fide.

SEPTUAGESIMA. The Sunday which in round numbers is 70 days before Easter: hence the name. There being exactly 50 days between the Sunday next before Lent and Easter day inclusive, that Sunday is termed Quinquagesima, i. e. the 50th. And the two immediately preceding are called from the next round numbers, Sexagesima and Septuagesima, 60th and 70th. The Church thus early begins to look forward to Easter, the queen of festivals. She would call back our minds from the rejoicing season of Christmas, and, by reflections on the humiliating necessity there was for Messiah’s advent, prepare us for that solemn season in Lent; in which, if with deep contrition and lively faith we follow Christ in his sufferings, we may rejoice with him here, and humbly hope to reign with him hereafter in his glory. The observance of these days and the weeks following, appears to be as ancient as the time of Gregory the Great. Some of the more devout Christians observed the whole time from the first of these Sundays to Easter, as a season of humiliation and fasting, though the ordinary custom was to commence fasting on Ash-Wednesday.

SEPTUAGINT. The Greek version of Scripture, which was received both by the Jews and the primitive Christians. The first account which we have of the origin of the Septuagint, is that which is given us by Aristeas. It is to this effect. Ptolemy Philadelphus, by the advice of Demetrius Phalereus, having determined to enrich his library at Alexandria with a translation of the books of the Jewish law, sent Aristeas, his minister, accompanied by Andrew, a person of celebrity, to Eleazar the high priest of the Jews, that he might obtain both a copy of the original, and persons duly qualified to render it into Greek. The request was complied with. A copy of the Mosaic law written in golden letters was sent, with seventy-two men, six from each tribe, to translate it. The translators, persons skilled both in Hebrew and Greek, 709were honourably received by the king of Egypt, and by him were sent to the isle of Pharos; and there, in the space of seventy-two days, they completed their work, mutually assisting each other, and dictating their translation to Demetrius. This version was afterwards read in an assembly consisting of Jewish priests and other learned men, and being stamped by their approbation, was placed in the library of Alexandria.

This account, given us by Aristeas, is sometimes appended to the editions of Josephus, and is also edited separately. It is worthy of remark, that in this description nothing of the marvellous is introduced, and it would clearly seem that the reference is to the Pentateuch, and to that only.

Josephus, in the twelfth book, s. 1, of his “Antiquities,” for the most part agrees with this account by Aristeas. But in the life of Moses, by Philo-Judæus, we find both variations and additions. Agreeing with Aristeas in his assertion, that certain learned Jews were sent from Jerusalem to Alexandria to translate the books of Moses, and that they were lodged by Ptolemy in the isle of Pharos, he tells us in addition, that all the translators were kept apart from each other; but that, notwithstanding this, their translations, upon comparison, were found exactly to correspond, as it were, by Divine inspiration. From Justin Martyr we find, that in his time the story was that the seventy-two translators were shut up each in a separate cell, where no intercourse could possibly take place; but that the translations, when produced, were found to agree not only in sense but verbally, not varying even in a single syllable. Here we certainly find a miracle implied; and in the time of Justin the story must have been well established, since he mentions his having seen the cells himself. With respect to the number of the cells, however, there must have been, as there easily might be, some uncertainty, for Epiphanius mentions only thirty-six. But the story had been made to shape itself according to the fact; and it was reported in his time, that, instead of a cell being allotted to each translator, two were shut up in each cell, who having been employed from sunrise till the evening, translated in order, not merely the Pentateuch, but each of the books of the Old Testament, and they so completed their work, that there was not to be found the slightest difference in any of the thirty-six versions; an astonishing harmony, in which a singular miracle of Divine providence could not fail to be traced.

Now, if to these statements implicit credit be given, the question is decided as to the miraculous origin and consequent inspiration of the Septuagint. But to these stories there are several obvious objections. We do not for a moment assent to the principle of that objection which is urged by the learned and candid Dupin, who, among the Romanists, is almost singular in opposing the Divine origin of the LXX., when he asks why there should be seventy-two translators when twelve would have sufficed? For this is the very spirit of rationalism: “I do not see why such should have been the case; and therefore it was not the case.” To such an objection the answer of the equally learned Dr. Brett, among Protestants the chief vindicator of the Divine origin of the Septuagint, is more than sufficient, when he urges that we might as well deny that, on our authorized English version, fifty-two persons were employed, when by twelve, or even by two, the work might have been accomplished. Nor would he insist, with Dean Prideaux, that the stories must be rejected, because the Septuagint is written in the Alexandrian dialect; and that, therefore, it could not have been effected, according to the supposition, by Jews sent from Judea; for there is no reason to suppose that the Greek spoken in Palestine was much different from that used in Egypt, that language having been introduced into both countries only about fifty years before by the same people—the Macedonians. Indeed, a comparison of the language of the New Testament with that of the Septuagint will disarm this objection of its force. We may, indeed, afford to give up another objection, which has very plausibly been urged, though its character is rationalistic, viz. that to collect six learned men from each tribe would have been difficult, if not impossible, the ten tribes having been dispersed after the taking of Samaria; for we know that many individuals belonging to these tribes were incorporated with the Jews, and there may have been means still left for distinguishing them. But, after all these allowances, there is strong internal evidence against these stories, arising from the difference of the manner and the style in which the several books are translated. In some the Hebraisms are said to preserved, in others not; some books (the Pentateuch for instance, the Proverbs, Ezekiel, Amos, Judges, Kings, and many of the Psalms) are well executed, while the translation of Isaiah is bad, and that of Daniel was so decidedly incorrect, that it was rejected by Origen, and its place 710supplied by the version of Theodotion. Now, is it probable that, if the Septuagint had been, according to the accounts already given, the work of the same men, at the same time, and acting under a miraculous inspiration, such very material difference should exist between the several books? Our own authorized version, though made by different persons, and though some of the books may be more correctly rendered than others, nevertheless preserves a uniformity of style which stamps it as being all the work of the same age. And the fact that this is not the case with respect to the Septuagint, is a presumption against its being the work of the same men living at the same time. And this is a consideration which prepares us to regard the external evidence with some suspicion. When, indeed, we look to the external evidence, we find that the authority which was at first assumed only for the Pentateuch is gradually assumed for all the books of the Old Testament. In Aristeas we read of no miracle: the miracle was evidently gradually introduced and enlarged upon, until subsequent writers believed it to be a fact. And we are always and most justly suspicious of a story which thus

“Mobilitate viget viresque acquirit eundo.”

Each successive writer has added to the marvellous. And we are, therefore, justified in deducting from the account each marvellous addition. And when we have done this, what is the result? We find the simple fact, that, about the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and under the direction of Demetrius Phalereus, a translation into Greek of the Mosaic books was made by persons sent from Judea. We must indeed go a step further, and deduct from the original statement, the assertion that the translation was made “by the direction of Demetrius Phalereus;” for though Demetrius was in great credit at Alexandria till the death of Soter, he was, immediately after that event, “disgraced by Philadelphus, and perished in confinement.” We cannot, therefore, attribute more than the original suggestion to Demetrius. But that, with this necessary deduction, we may fairly admit this, or at least the historical fact that it embodies, appears from the improbability of these stories having no foundation, and from the fact that both Ælian (Var. Hist. iii. 17) and Plutarch (Opp. t. ii. p. 189) inform us that Demetrius was appointed by one of the Ptolemies to preside over the drawing up of a code of laws, and had advised his sovereign to collect all the books he could which treated of political subjects, and in which doctrines were laid down which even their most familiar friends would not dare to mention to kings. It derives strength also from the circumstance, that the Samaritans contended with the Jews for the honour of being the authors of the Septuagint; pretending that Ptolemy, having heard of the disagreement between the two nations, caused a translation to be made of the Samaritan copy of the Septuagint, which he preferred to the copy he received from Jerusalem. Although this story is not corroborated, it is not impossible that a collation of the two copies may have taken place, care having evidently been taken to procure as good a version as possible. It may be proper to mention, that by Clemens Alexandrinus and by Eusebius, a quotation from an Alexandrian Jew and Peripatetic philosopher named Aristobulus has been preserved, in which he affirms that a Greek translation of the Old Testament was in existence anterior to the Septuagint, of which Plato and other Greek philosophers availed themselves. That some small portions of the ancient Scriptures may have been translated is far from impossible; but we cannot attach any weight to the unsupported testimony of a person who lived only 176 years before the Christian æra, and adduced in support of what was at the time a favourite theory with the Jews. His testimony, however, is of some importance, as proving that the Greek version of the Old Testament, which was then in use, was universally referred to the age of Ptolemy Philadelphus.

After taking into consideration all these various circumstances, all that we can satisfactorily say of the Septuagint is, that the Mosaic books were translated into Greek about 285 years before Christ, to which the other books were added from time to time, especially when, on occasion of the prohibition by Antiochus Epiphanes to read the law, the prophets used to be read publicly in the synagogues, and on the restoration of the law became “a second lesson.” It is generally admitted that the work was completed in the main parts prior to the middle of the second century, before the birth of our Saviour; that it was used as a sort of authorized version by the Jews of Alexandria, and by the Hellenistic Jews in general; and that as such it is expressly quoted nearly eighty times in the writings of the New Testament, being indirectly referred to much more frequently. And thus, to adopt the very beautiful and pious language of Dr. Lightfoot, “the greatest 711authority of this translation appeareth in that the holy Greek of the New Testament doth so much follow it. For as God useth this translation as a harbinger to the fetching in of the Gentiles, so when it was grown into authority by the time of Christ’s coming, it seemed good to his infinite wisdom to add to its authority himself, the better to forward the building of the Church. And admirable it is to see with what sweetness and harmony the New Testament doth follow this translation sometimes beside the Old, to show that he who gave the Old can and may best expound it in the New.”—Works, iv. 32. See Owen on the Septuagint: Hodius de Bib. Textibus Originalibus.

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

SEPULCHRE. A niche, generally at the north side of the altar, used in the scenic representations of our Saviour’s burial and resurrection, on Good Friday and Easter, before the Reformation, and representing our Lord’s tomb, is called the Holy Sepulchre. It is sometimes quite plain, sometimes gorgeously adorned; the general subjects, where it is much decorated, being the Roman soldiers sleeping, on the base, and angels censing at the top. There is a remarkably fine series of these in the churches of Lincolnshire, and in Lincoln cathedral, perhaps the most beautiful in the kingdom.

SEQUESTRATION. This is a separating the thing in controversy from the possession of both the contending parties.

When a living becomes void by the death of an incumbent or otherwise, the ordinary is to send out his sequestration, to have the cure supplied, and to preserve the profits (after the expenses deducted) for the use of the successor. Sometimes a benefice is left under sequestration for many years together, namely, when it is of so small value that no clergyman, fit to serve the cure, will be at the charge of taking it by institution: in this case, the sequestration is committed sometimes to the curate only, sometimes to the curate and churchwardens jointly.

Sometimes the profits of a living are sequestered for neglect of duty: but that kind of sequestration most generally known and understood, because applicable to civil affairs, is upon the queen’s writ to the bishop to satisfy the debts of the incumbent.

This is where a judgment has been obtained in the law courts against a clergyman; and upon a fieri facias directed to the sheriff to levy the debt and damages, he makes his return that the defendant in a clerk beneficed, having no lay fee. Whereupon a levari facias is directed to the bishop to levy the same of his ecclesiastical goods, and by virtue thereof the property of the benefice shall be sequestered. In this case, the bishop may name the sequestrators himself, or may grant the sequestration to such persons as shall be named by the party who obtained the writ.

There are several other circumstances mentioned in books of ecclesiastical law, under which sequestration may take place; but it may be stated generally that, for any damages to which an incumbent may be made liable by civil action, the property of the benefice may also be made answerable by the process of sequestration. But it seems that the bishop is the party through whom this confiscation for the benefit of the creditor must take place. The sequestration is his act, to which he is bound by the queen’s writ; and it has been held that a bill filed in equity against sequestrators only was insufficient for want of parties. The bishop should be a party, for the sequestrator is accountable to him for what he receives.

SERAPHIM denotes an order of angels who surround the throne of the Lord. Derived from a Hebrew word, which signifies fiery. (See Angels.)

SERMONS are orations or discourses, delivered by the clergy of the Christian Church in their religious assemblies.

In the ancient Church, immediately after the reading of the psalms and lessons out of the Scriptures, before the catechumens were dismissed, followed the sermon, which the bishop, or some other appointed by him, made to the people. This, being done in the presence of the catechumens, was therefore reckoned a part of the Missa Catechumenorum or ante-communion service. Such discourses were commonly termed homilies, from the Greek ὁμιλίαι, which signifies indifferently any discourse of instruction to the people. Among the Latins they were frequently called tractatus, and the preachers tractatores.

Preaching, anciently, was one of the chief offices of a bishop; insomuch that, in the African Churches, a presbyter was never known to preach before a bishop in his cathedral church, till St. Austin’s time. In the Eastern Church, presbyters were indeed allowed to preach before the bishop; but this was not to discharge him of the duty, for still he preached a sermon at the same time after them. In the 712lesser churches of the city and country, the office of preaching was devolved upon the presbyters; but deacons never were allowed to perform it. There are numberless passages in the writings of the Fathers, which speak of preaching as a duty indispensably incumbent on a bishop. Many canons of councils either suppose or enjoin it. And in the imperial laws there are several edicts of the secular power to the same purpose. Particularly in the Theodosian code, there is one jointly made by the three emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, which bears this title, De munere seu officio episcoporum in prædicando verbo Dei, “of the duty and office of bishops in preaching the word of God.”

It has been a question, whether laymen were ever allowed by authority to make sermons to the people. It is certain they did it in a private way, as catechists, in their catechetic schools at Alexandria and other places; but this was a different thing from public preaching in the church. Sometimes the monks, who were only laymen, took upon them to preach; but this was censured and opposed, as an usurpation of an office that did not belong to them. Yet in some cases a special commission was given to a layman to preach; as in the case of Origen, who was licensed by Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, to preach and expound the Scriptures in the church, before he was in orders. As to women, whatever gifts they could pretend to, they were never allowed to preach publicly in the church; agreeably to the apostolical rule, “Let your women keep silence in the churches,” &c. But they might teach those of their own sex, as private catechists, and to prepare them for baptism. And this was the office of the deaconesses. The Montanists were a noted sect for giving the liberty of preaching to women, under pretence of inspiration by the Spirit; for they had their prophetesses, their women-bishops, and women-presbyters.

Next to the persons, the manner in which the office of preaching was executed, comes to be considered. And, first, it is observable, that they had sometimes two or three sermons preached in the same assembly, first by the presbyters and then by the bishop. When two or more bishops happened to be present in the same assembly, it was usual for several of them to preach one after another, reserving the last place for the most honourable person. In some places they had sermons every day, especially in Lent, and the festival days of Easter. St. Chrysostom’s homilies were evidently preached in Lent, one day after another; and, in St. Augustine’s homilies, there are frequent references to the sermon made heri and hesterno die. In many places they had sermons twice a day for the better edification of the people. But this is chiefly to be understood of cities and large churches. For in the country parishes there was not such frequent preaching.

The next thing to be observed is, their different sorts of sermons, and different ways of preaching. These are distinguished into four kinds; 1. Expositions of Scripture. 2. Panegyrical discourses upon the saints and martyrs. 3. Sermons upon particular times, occasions, and festivals. 4. Sermons upon particular doctrines, or moral subjects. There are examples of all these kinds in St. Chrysostom’s and St. Augustine’s homilies, the two great standards of preaching in the Greek and Latin Churches. But though most of these were studied and elaborate discourses, penned and composed beforehand, yet some were also extempore, spoken without any previous composition, and taken down in short-hand from the mouth of the preacher. Origen was the first that began the way of extempore preaching in the church. The catechetical discourses of St. Cyril are thought to be of this kind; for at the beginning of every one almost it is said in the title to be σχεδιασθεῖσα, which the critics translate an extempore discourse. Instances of this sort were very frequent among the Fathers of the ancient Church. And, in regard to this, they are wont frequently to mention the assistance of the Spirit in composing and preaching their sermons; by which they did not mean any kind of enthusiasm, but only the concurrence of the Spirit of God with their honest endeavours, as a blessing on their labours and studies.

Upon this account it was usual for the preacher to usher in his discourse with a short prayer for such Divine assistance. In this sense we are to understand St. Chrysostom, when he says, we must first pray, and then preach. Sometimes, before they began to preach, they used the common salutation, Pax vobis, Peace be with you; to which the people answered, And with thy spirit. And sometimes they prefaced the sermon with a short form of benediction, especially in times of calamity and distress, or of happy deliverances out of them. Sometimes they preached without any text, and sometimes upon more texts than one. Nor did they entertain 713their 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 714only 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.