of Christianity. The praises of God may be sung privately in the family, but chiefly in the house of God; and should be attended to with reverence, sincerity, joy, gratitude, and with the understanding, 1 Cor. xiv. 15. Among the AntiPædobaptists, during the early part of their existence, psalmody was generally excluded as an human ordinance; but some congregations having adopted it about the beginning of the eighteenth century a violent controversy was excited. About the middle of the century, however, the praises of God were sung in every Anti-Pædobaptist church. It is to be lamented, however, that this ordinance has not that attention paid to it which it deserves. That great divine, Dr. Jonathan Edwards, observes, that "as it is the command of God that all should sing, so all should make conscience of learning to sing, as it is a thing that cannot be decently performed at all without learning. Those, therefore, (where there is no natural inability,) who neglect to learn to sing, live in sin, as they neglect what is necessary in order to their attending one of the ordinances of God's worship." We leave those who are wilfully dumb in God's house to consider this pointed remark.

Much has been said as to the use of instrumental music in the house of God. On the one side it is observed that we ought not to object to it, because it as sists devotion; that it was used in the worship of God under the Old Testament; and that the worship of heaven is represented by a delightful union of vocal and instrumental music. But on the other side, it is remarked, that nothing should be done in or about God's worship without example or precept from the New Testament; that, instead of aiding devotion, it often tends to draw off the mind from the right object; that it does not accord with the simplicity of Christian worship; that the practice of those who lived under the ceremonial dispensation can be no rule for us; that not one text in the New Testament requires or authorises it by precept or example, by express words or fair inference; and that the representation of the musical harmony in heaven is merely figurative language, denoting the happiness of the saints. See Music. We have not room here to prosecute the arguments on either side; but the reader may refer to p. 211 of the fourth volume of Bishop Beveridge's Thesaurus; Stil

ling fleet's and Bp. Horne's Sermons on Church Music; No. 630 of the eighth vol. of the Spectator; Bishop Horne on the 150th Psalm; Theol. Mag. vol. ii. p. 427, and vol. iv. pp. 333, 458; Biblical Mag. vol. ii. p. 35 ; Ridgley's Body of Div. ques. 155; Haweiss Church History, vol. i. p. 403; Williams's Historical Essay on Church Music, prefixed to Psalmodia Evangelica, vol. ii. p. 56; Bedford's Temple Music; Lyra Evangelica; Practical Discourses on Singing in the Worship of God, preached at the Friday Evening Lecture in East Cheap, 1708; Dodwell's Treatise on the Lawfulness of Instrumental Music in Holy Duties.

SIX ARTICLES, law of. See STATUTES.

SLANDER, according to Dr. Barrow, is uttering false speeches against our neighbour, to the prejudice of his fame, safety, welfare; and that out of malignity, vanity, rashness, ill nature, or bad design. The principal kinds of slander are these:1. Charging others with facts they are not guilty of. 2. Affixing scandalous names and odious characters which they deserve not. 3. Aspersing a man's actions with foul names, importing that they proceed from evil principles, or tend to bad ends, when it doth not, or cannot appear. 4. Perverting a man's words or acts disadvantageously by affected misconstruction. 5. Partial or lame representation of men's discourse or practice, suppressing some part of the truth, or concealing some circumstances which ought to be explained. 6. Instilling sly suggestions which create prejudice in the hearers. 7. Magnify ing and aggravating the faults of others. 8. Imputing to our neighbour's prac+ tice, judgment, or profession, evil consequences which have no foundation in truth.

Of all characters in society, a slanderer is the most odious, and the most likely to produce mischief. His tongue," says the great Massillon, "is a devouring fire, which tarnishes whatever it touches; which exercises its fury on the good grain equally as on the chaff; on the profane as on the sacred; which, wherever it passes, leaves only desolation and ruin; digs even into the bowels of the earth; turns into vile ashes what only a moment before had appeared to us so precious and brilliant; acts with more violence and danger than ever, in the time when it was apparently smo

thered up and almost extinct; which blackens what it cannot consume, and sometimes sparkles and delights before it destroys. It is an assemblage of iniquity, a secret pride, which discovers to us the mote in our brother's eye, but hides the beam which is in our own; a mean envy, which, hurt at the talents or prosperity of others, makes them the subject of its censures, and studies to dim the splendour of whatever outshines itself; a disguised hatred, which sheds in its speeches the hidden venom of the heart; an unworthy duplicity which praises to the face, and tears in pieces behind the back; a shameful levity which has no command over itself or words, and often sacrifices both fortune and comfort to the imprudence of an amusing conversation; a deliberate barbarity, which goes to pierce an absent brother; a scandal, where we become a subject of shame and sin to those who listen to us; an injustice, where we ravish from our brother what is dearest to him. It is a restless evil, which disturbs society; spreads dissension through cities and countries; disunites the strictest friendships; is the source of hatred and revenge; fills wherever it enters with disturbances and confusion; and everywhere is an enemy to peace, comfort, and Christian good breeding. Lastly, it is an evil full of deadly poison: whatever flows from it is infected, and poisons whatever it approaches; even its praises are empoisoned; its applauses malicious; its silence criminal; its gestures, motions, and looks, have all their venom, and spread it each in their way. Still more dreadful is this evil when it is found amongst those who are the professed disciples of Jesus Christ. Ah! the Church formerly held in horror the exhibitions of gladiators, and denied that believers, brought up in the tenderness and benignity of Jesus Christ, could innocently feast their eyes with the blood and death of these unfortunate slaves, or form an harmless recreation of so inhuman a pleasure: but these renew more detestable shows; for they bring upon the stage-not infamous wretches devoted to death-but members of Jesus Christ, their brethren; and there they entertain the spectators with wounds which they inflict on persons who have devoted themselves to God." Barrow's Works, vol. i. ser. 17, 18; Massillon's Sermons, vol. 1. ser. 5, English trans.; and article EVIL SPEAKING.

SMALCALD, ARTICLES OF. See ARTICLES.

SMALCALDIC LEAGUE. See

LEAGUE.

66

SOBRIETY, freedom from any inordinate passion. Sobriety," as one observes, "is both the ornament and the defence of a Christian. It is requisite in every situation, and in every enterprise; indeed, nothing can be done well without it. The want of sobriety is seen and felt by multitudes every day. Without sobriety a man is exposed to the tossing of the merciless waves, destitute of an anchor. Sobriety is a security against the baneful influence of turbulent passions; it is self-possession; it is self-defence. It is necessary on all occasions: when we read, when we hear, when we pray, when we converse, when we form schemes, when we pursue them, when we prosper, when we fail. Sobriety is necessary for all descriptions of character; it is necessary for the young and for the old; for the rich and the poor, for the wise and for the illiterate; all need to be sober. The necessity of sobriety is obvious,-1. In our inquiries after truth, as opposed to presumption. 2. In our pursuit of this world, as opposed to covetousness. 3. In the use and estimate of the things of this world, as opposed to excess. 4. In trials and afflictions, as opposed to impatience. 5. In forming our judgment of others, as opposed to censoriousness. 6. In speaking of one's self, as opposed to egotism. Many motives might be urged to this exercise, as, 1. The general language of Scripture, 1 Pet. v. 8; Phil. iv. 5; Tit. ii. 12; 1 Pet. iv. 7. 2. Our profession as Christians. 3. The example of Jesus Christ; and 4. The near approach of death and judgment." See DRUNKENNESS, MODERATION.

SOCINIANS. Faustus Socinus, who died in Poland in 1604, is generally considered as the founder of this denomination; and from him they derive their name. Modern Socinians, however, being strenuous advocates for the divine unity, now claim the appellation of Unitarians, as more descriptive of their tenets, since they do not acknowledge all the doctrines of Socinus. But neither do any other denomination of professing Christians hold all the doctrines of their respective founders: it is sufficient for the purpose of just discrimination, if they hold the leading or peculiar sentiments of the party, in order

to warrant their being called by his name. The distinguishing sentiment of Socinus was, the simple humanity of Christ; that of modern Unitarians is the same; hence they are properly denominated Socinians, however this sentiment may be modified, or whatever be the subordinate parts of the system.

The term Unitarian, as implying a denial of three persons in the Godhead, might be proper to distinguish Socinians from Trinitarians; but when understood in its popular sense, as not only denying the revealed distinction in Deity, but also as exclusively maintaining the divine unity which all Trinitarians contend for no less than themselves, the appellation ceases to be appropriate, and therefore has been strongly objected to by the Calvinists, and other Trinitarians. The Jews, the Mahometans, the Sabellians, the Swedenborgians, and even the Deists, allow of only one Person in the divine essence; of course the Socinians cannot plead any preferable claim over them to be called Unitarians. Being, nevertheless, zealous advocates for the simple humanity of Christ, and maintaining that the Saviour is merely a human being, some of them have taken the name of " 'Humanitarians," which is certainly more descriptive of their leading sentiment; while others of them choose to call themselves "Rational Christians."

Their sentiment is, that the Father, and he alone, is truly and properly God; that the Son had no existence whatsoever, before he was conceived by the Virgin Mary; and that the Holy Spirit is no distinct subsistence from the Father and the Son, but that the title is merely figurative, denoting the power or energy of God. They confess that Christ is called God in the Holy Scriptures; but contend that it is only a deputed title, investing him with great authority; and that while he is nominally God, he is really nothing more than a mere man : yet that he was an extraordinary person, acting under a divine commission as a teacher of truth and righteousness; and that in him the prophecies relating to the Messiah were completely, though not literally, fulfilled. They admit the whole history of his ascension and glorification in its literal acceptation; but believing him to be a mere man like themselves, though endowed with a large portion of divine wisdom, they assert that the only objects of his mission were, to teach the

efficacy of repentance, without any proper atonement for sin, as a means of restoring us to the divine favour, to exhibit in his life and conduct an example for our imitation,-to seal his doctrine with his blood,--and in his resurrection from the dead, to furnish a proof of the certainty of our resurrection at the last day.

Their doctrine respecting the atonement is, that God requires no consideration or condition of pardon, but the repentance of the offender; and that, consequently, the death of Christ was no real sacrifice for sin; and though it be so called in Scripture, it is merely in a figurative sense, by way of allusion to the Jewish sin-offerings; just as our praises and other good works are called sacrifices, because they are something offered up to God. The mediation of Christ is wholly rejected, and the pardon of sin is said to be dispensed solely on account of men's personal virtue, without any regard to the sufferings or merit of another. They explode the doctrine of original sin, and also that of divine influence upon the mind, contending that the latter was peculiar to the times of the apostles, and was merely subservient to the purpose of working miracles.

The Socinians of the sixteenth century believed that Christ was advanced to the government of the universe, after his resurrection, and that religious worship was to be paid to him; but those of the present day generally consider this notion as unscriptural, and therefore reject it; and, regarding him as a mere man like themselves, they very consistently withhold from him all religious homage. They also have other reasons for deviating from their predecessors: "Jesus is indeed alive, they think; and, without doubt, employed in offices the most honourable and benevolent; but as they are totally ignorant of the place where he resides, and of the occupations in which he is engaged, there can be no proper foundation for religious addresses to him, nor of gratitude for favours now received, nor yet of confidence in his future interposition on our behalf."

Modern Socinians consider the Scriptures to be faithful records of past transactions, but deny that the writers were divinely inspired, except in those cases where they themselves expressly claim it; they allow that they wrote according to the best of their knowledge, and from their circumstances could not be mistaken with respect to the principal facts

of which they were proper witnesses; but that, like other men, subject to prejudice, they might be liable to adopt a hasty and ill-grounded opinion concerning things which did not come within the compass of their knowledge.

The partial inspiration of the sacred writers, in general, is extended not only to Moses, but even to our blessed Lord himself; for they can see no reason for believing, that either Moses or Christ were inspired with supernatural knowledge, or endowed with supernatural power, beyond the immediate objects of their mission. They consequently aim at divesting revealed religion of every circumstance not consonant to the dictates of human reason. Hence they do not believe in our Lord's miraculous conception; but are of opinion that he was the legitimate son of Joseph and Mary, and consequently that the two first chapters of Matthew, containing this doctrine, are to be rejected as spurious. But though they consider the present authorised version as liable to great objections, and have endeavoured to substitute what they consider an "Improved Version" in its stead, the Socinians have generally united with the Bible Societies in their laudable exertions to circulate the Scriptures, affording, in this instance, an honourable proof of their candour and liberality.

Though not necessarily connected with the system, Socinians in general deny the existence of the devil and his agency, considering it as an evanescent prejudice, which it is now a discredit to a man of understanding to believe. Many of them also reject the spirituality and separate existence of the soul; believing that man is wholly material, and that our only prospect of immortality is from the Christian doctrine of a resurrection. Of course the notion of an intermediate state of consciousness between death and the resurrection is rejected; for as the whole man dies, so the whole man is to be called again to life at the appointed period of the resurrection, with the same associations that he had when alive; the intermediate portion of time having been passed by him in a state of utter insensibility. In their view, also, future punishment is neither vindictive nor eternal, but disciplinary; intended for the good of the party, and appointed for a limited time, so that all at last are to be recovered and restored to the enjoyment of eternal life. In what relates to worship

and discipline, they adopt the Independent form of Church government, generally use written forms of prayer, and consider the Lord's Supper as the only standing ordinance under the Gospel.

The Socinians evidently carry the principle of free discussion, in matters of religion, to a much greater length than any other denomination of professed Christians, and this without seeming to think that any apology is necessary from them for it. Dr. Priestley appeared to glory in the continual fluctuation of his public creed; nor did he wish his friends to consider it at any period as being fixed. Hence he tells one of his correspondents, that his life, as a theologician, was made up of a succession of changes, but always from high to low. He commenced his career with high Calvinism, which he afterwards changed for what is termed moderate Calvinism. In process of time that gave place to Arminianism, and the latter to Arianism, which, in its turn, was also changed for Socinianism, and that even of the lowest class; nor could he pretend to say that his creed was then fixed. The doctor's successor acknowledges that he does not know where to stop in his career. One Socinian writer wishes it to be understood that he has discovered three out of the four Evangelists to be spurious; another endeavours to prove prayer to be a thing nugatory and vain; a third has attempted to put down public worship altogether, as being little better than hypocrisy; and a fourth opposes the morality of the Sabbath, recommending the revival of the book of sports on that day; while another denies the doctrine of the resurrection and the general judgment, which others of them had pronounced the only discoveries of rational Christianity.

Socinians were but little known in England until the reign of Charles I., when the famous John Biddle became their leader, and was ably opposed by. the pious and learned Dr. Owen. Since that period they have acquired considerable distinction, from the writings and influence of Dr. Priestley and his associates, and also from the literary labours of the Monthly and Critical Reviewers. They have also gained some accession to their numbers, both from the Church and from among Dissenters, particularly of the Presbyterian denomination, whose sentiments would more easily coalesce with theirs than those of

some others; but it does not appear that any considerable number of converts have at any time been made to Socinianism from among profligates and unbelievers. Dr. Priestley, with much honour to himself, attempted to convert the Jews, but it was attended with no success: on the contrary, his Jewish opponent undertook to prove to the world, that the doctor himself did not understand the Christian Scriptures. Mr. Levi entitled his first letter, in answer to Dr. Priestley's second address, "The Divinity of Christ, and his Pre-existent State, proved to be taught in the Gospels; and consequently, whoever does not believe the same, is not entitled to the appellation of a Christian." In America, Dr. Priestley was equally unsuccessful; for during the ten years that he lived there, his ministry was but indifferently attended, and it is said that his congregation rarely exceeded thirty or forty persons. They afterwards greatly increased, but almost exclusively in the city of Boston and its vicinity. They lately amounted to one hundred and fifty congregations, larger and smaller, in the United States; but are said, of late years, to be on the decline. Till within these few years past, it does not appear that there were any congregations of this description in Scotland, nor scarcely any individuals who were avowed Socinians. England is their principal seat; here they have a college, and have had some men of learning: but-excepting some half-dozen chapels in the metropolis and other large towns, which are pretty well filled-their congregations wear every appearance of desolation. Their congregations may be divided into two classes,-the ancient and the modern; but in many of both, the number of hearers does not average thirty. Those recently formed are struggling hard for existence; and notwithstanding all the efforts which have been recently made, both from the pulpit and the press, and the boasted number of conversions to Socinianism which take place, the body is on the wane, rather than the increase. The reason is obvious: the system only suits the cast of a certain order of mind. Those of this cast may remain; but numbers merely avail themselves of the position which it affords, of a convenient and momentary halting-place on the road to total infide lity. In 1808, the Socinians published, under a very fallacious title,-what they termed an Improved Version of the New

Testament, but it never took; and no wonder: for, as Mr. Orme justly observes, it mangles and misrepresents the original text, perverts the meaning of its most important terms, and explains away all that is valuable in the doctrinal system of Christtianity." Though professedly critical, there perhaps never appeared a work which more outrages every principle of sound biblical criticism. Its errors and blunders were ably exposed by Nares, Laurence, Magee, and writers in the British and Eclectic Reviews.

Their principal writers are Priestley, Lindsay, Belsham, Carpenter, Yates, and Channing. Those who have taken the most prominent part on the other side of the controversy, as carried on in modern times, are Horsley, Magee, Fuller, Wardlaw, J. P. Smith, Stuart, and Woods.

SODOR AND MAN, the Bishopric of. This article is here introduced, on the supposition that few readers know where Sodor lies, or what is meant by the name. The Norwegians and Danes, who in ancient times occupied the Orkneys, and other islands on the coast of Scotland, divided these islands into two groups: to the former they gave the name of Nordureyar, or Northern Isles; and to the latter, which included the western islands, that of Sudureyar, or Southern Isles. By Sodor, therefore, is meant the western islands of Scotland, especially those most contiguous to the Isle of Man, which, with them, formed a diocese."

SOLDINS, so called from their leader, one Soldin, a Greek priest. They appeared about the middle of the fifth century in the kingdoms of Saba and Godolia. They altered the manner of the sacrifice of the mass; their priests offered gold, their deacons incense, and their sub-deacons myrrh; and this in memory of the like offerings made to the infant Jesus by the wise men. Very few authors mention the Soldins, neither do we know whether they still subsist.

SOLFIDIANS, those who rest on faith alone for salvation, without any connexion with works; or who judge themselves to be Christ's, because they believe they are.

SON OF GOD, a term applied in the Scriptures not only to magistrates and saints, but more particularly to Jesus Christ. Christ, says Bishop Pearson, has a fourfold right to this title, 1. By generation, as begotten of God,