The history recorded in this book, is that of Ruth, a Moabitish woman, who, coming to Bethlehem, and being married to Boaz her kinsman, bare to him Obed, who was the grandfather of David. In this story are observable the ancient rights of kindred and redemption, and the manner of buying the inheritance of the deceased; with other particulars of great note and antiquity.
It is difficult to determine under what judge the history of Ruth happened. Some place it in the government of Ehud or Shamgar; and others about the beginning of the time when Eli judged Israel.
SABAOTH. A Hebrew word, signifyinghostsorarmies.Jehovah Sabaothis theLordof Hosts. “Holy, holy, holy,Lord Godof Sabaoth.”
SABBATARIANS, are so called from their keeping the seventh day of the week as the sabbath; whilst Christians in general keep the first day of the week, or Sunday, in memory of ourSaviour’shaving risen that day from the dead. On the continent they are generally, but improperly, called Israelites. It is uncertain when they first made their appearance;but we learn from Fuller that there were Sabbatarians in 1633.
They object to the reasons which are generally alleged for keeping the first day; and they insist that the change of the sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, did not take place till the beginning of the fourth century, when it was effected by the emperor Constantine, on his conversion to Christianity. A summary of their principles, as to this article of the sabbath, by which they stand distinguished, is contained in the three following propositions:—1. ThatGodhas required the observance of the seventh, or last, day of every week, to be observed by mankind universally for the weekly sabbath. 2. That this command ofGodis perpetually binding on man till time shall be no more. And 3. That this sacred rest of the seventh day sabbath, is not changed by Divine authority, from the seventh and last to the first day of the week; or, that the Scripture nowhere requires the observance of any other day of the week for the weekly sabbath, but the seventh day only, which is still kept by the Jews, to whom the law on this subject was given. These are much more consistent in their rejection of all the subsidiary helps of antiquity in interpreting the Scriptures, than those Protestants who observe the first day of the week with Judaical strictness.
SABBATH, REST. Sabbath day, the day of rest. The sabbath day, strictly speaking, is Saturday, the observance of which is not considered obligatory by Christians. But the term is sometimes applied to theLord’sday, which is regarded as a feast by the Church universal. (SeeLord’s Day.)
SABELLIANS, were so called from Sabellius, a presbyter, or, according to others, a bishop of Libya, who was the founder of the sect.
Sabellius flourished early in the third century, and his doctrine seems to have had many followers for a short time. Its growth, however, was soon checked by the opposition made to it by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, and the sentence of condemnation pronounced upon its author by Pope Dionysius, in a council held at Rome,A. D.263.
Sabellius taught that there was but one person in theGodhead; and, in confirmation of this doctrine, he made use of this comparison: as a man, though composed of body and soul, is but one person, soGod, though he isFather,Son, andHoly Ghost, is but one person. Hence the Sabellians reduced the three persons in theTrinityto three characters or relations, and maintained that theWordandHoly Spiritare only virtues, emanations, or functions of the Deity; that he who is in heaven is theFatherof all things; that he descended into the Virgin, became a child, and was born of her as a son; and that, having accomplished the mystery of our redemption, he diffused himself upon the apostles in tongues of fire, and was then denominated theHoly Ghost.
Between the system of Sabellianism and what is termed theindwellingscheme, there appears to be a considerable resemblance, if it be not precisely the same, differently explained. The indwelling scheme is chiefly founded on a false and unauthorized sense of that passage in the New Testament, where the apostle, speaking ofChrist, says, “In him dwelleth all the fulness of theGodheadbodily.” Dr. Watts, towards the close of his life, introduced the Sabellian heresy, and wrote several pieces in its defence. His sentiments on theTrinityappear to have been, that “theGodhead, theDeityitself, personally distinguished as theFather, was united to the manChrist Jesus, in consequence of which union or indwelling of theGodheadhe became properlyGod.” Mr. Palmer observes that Dr. Watts conceived this union to have subsisted before theSaviour’sappearance in the flesh, and that the human soul ofChristexisted with theFatherfrom before the foundation of the world; on which ground he maintains the real descent ofChristfrom heaven to earth, and the whole scene of his humiliation, which he thought incompatible with the common opinion concerning him. Dr. Doddridge is supposed to have entertained the same sentiments.
SACRAMENT. (SeeSeven Sacraments.) In classical writers, observes Bishop Kaye, in his learned treatise on Tertullian, the wordsacramentummeans an oath or promise ratified by a sacred or religious ceremony: thus, the oath taken by the military was calledsacramentum. In strict conformity with this, its original signification, it is used to express the promise made by Christians in baptism. From the oath the transition was easy to the ceremony by which it was ratified. Thussacramentumcame to signify any religious ordinance, and in general to stand for that which in Greek is expressed by the wordμυστήριον(mystery), any emblematical notion of a sacred import, any external act having an internal or secret meaning. If the word is understood in this extendedsense, the Romanists are clearly wrong in confining the title to only seven rites or ordinances. The first who did this was probably the celebrated Master of the Sentences [Peter Lombard, in the twelfth century]. Certain it is that the number of seven sacraments was first decreed by Eugenius in the fifteenth century, that the first provincial council which confirmed the decree was one convened in the sixteenth century, and that the first council, even pretending to be general, that adopted it with an anathema was the Council of Trent.
This is, in fact, our dispute on this point with Rome. If the Romanists take the wordsacramentin its enlarged sense, then they ought not to confine it, as they do, to seven rites; if they take it in its strict sense, then they ought to confine it to two, baptism and the supper of theLord. Taking the word in its general sense, the Church of England directs the clergy to speak to the people of matrimony as a sacrament. “By the like holy promisethe sacrament of matrimonyknitteth man and wife in perpetual love,” &c.—Homily on Swearing, part i. The Church of England in this sense acknowledges other rites to be sacraments besides baptism and the eucharist. (See below, the extract from the Homily,Of Common Prayer and Sacraments.) This is a very important distinction: “Let it be clearly understood,” says Bishop Jeremy Taylor, “it is none of the doctrine of the Church of England that there are two sacramentsonly, but that of those rituals commanded in Scripture, which ecclesiastical use calls sacraments, by a word of art, two onlyare generally necessary to salvation.”—Taylor’s Dissuasive, p. 240. In like manner Archbishop Secker says, “As the word sacrament is not a Scripture one, and hath at different times been differently understood, our catechism doth not require it to be said absolutely that the sacraments aretwo only, buttwo only necessary to salvation; leaving persons at liberty to comprehend more things under the name if they please, provided they insist not on the necessity of them, and of dignifying them with this title.”—Secker’s Lectures, xxxv.Of Baptism. It will be seen that this is in accordance with the answer in the catechism to the question, How many sacraments hasChristordained in his Church? the answer being not simplytwo, but “two only as generally necessary to salvation.”
We have said that the distinction is important, for it enables us to take high ground on this doctrine. It is not by depressing the other ordinances of the Church which Cranmer and Taylor call sacramentals, but by placing baptism and the eucharist in their proper place and dignity, that we best defend the English Church on this point. If, with the latitudinarians, we depress the proper sacraments and make baptism a mere ceremony, and the eucharist only a more solemn form of self-dedication or worship, our controversy becomes a childish dispute about words. Not so if we distinguish, with the Church of England, baptism and the eucharist from all other ordinances, because they are, what the others are not, necessary for salvation to all men, wherever they can be had. Other ordinances may confer grace, but baptism and the eucharist alone unite withChristhimself. “By baptism we receiveChrist Jesus, and from him the saving grace which is proper to baptism; by the eucharist we receive him also imparting therein himself, and that grace which the eucharist properly bestows.” Again; baptism and the eucharist are what none of the other ordinances are, federal rites, the one for initiating, the other for renewing the covenant of grace, instituted for a reciprocal communion betweenGodand man, of blessings on the one part and duty on the other; they are not merely a means to an end, but they are actually a part of our moral and Christian holiness, piety, and perfection; “as much a part of virtue,” says Dr. Waterland, “as the performance of any moral duty is, as much as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked,” &c.
From what has been said it will be seen,
1. That, in the large acceptation of the word sacrament, there are many more sacraments than seven.
2. That, in the strict definition of the word, there are only two, baptism and the eucharist.
But we may sum up the whole in the words which the Church of England uses in one of the homilies: “You shall hear how many sacraments there be, that were instituted by ourSaviour Christ, and are to be continued, and received of every Christian in due time and order, and for such purpose as ourSaviour Christwilled them to be received. And as for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a sacrament, namely, for visible signs, expressly commanded in the New Testament,whereunto is annexed the promise of forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness, and joining inChrist, there be but two, namely, baptism and the supper of theLord. For,although absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin, yet by the express word of the New Testament it hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, which is imposition of hands. For this visible sign (I mean laying on of hands) is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be used in absolution, as the visible sign in baptism and theLord’ssupper are; and therefore absolution is nosuchsacrament as baptism and the communion are. And though the ordering of ministers hath this visible sign and promise, yet it lacks the promise of remission of sin as all other sacraments besides the two above-named do. Therefore neither it, nor any other sacrament else, be such sacraments as baptism and the communion are.But in a general acceptation, the name of a sacrament may be attributed to anything; whereby an holy thing is signified.In which understanding of the word, the ancient writers have given this name, not only to the other five, commonly of late years taken and used for supplying the number of the seven sacraments, but also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet, and such like, not meaning thereby to repute them as sacraments, in the same signification that the two forenamed sacraments are. And therefore St. Augustine, weighing the true signification and exact meaning of the word, writing to Januarius, and also in the third book of Christian doctrine, affirmeth, that the sacraments of the Christians, as they are most excellent in signification, so are they most few in number, and in both places maketh mention expressly of two, the sacrament of baptism and the supper of theLord. And although there are retained by order of the Church of England, besides these two, certain other rites and ceremonies about the institution of ministers in the Church, matrimony, confirmation of children, by examining them of their knowledge in the articles of the faith, and joining thereto the prayers of the Church for them, and likewise for the visitation of the sick; yet no man ought to take these for sacraments insuch signification and meaningas the sacraments of baptism and theLord’ssupper are.”—Homily of Common Prayer and Sacraments.
A sacrament is defined in the catechism, in the strict sense, as “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained byChristhimself as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.”
1. There must be an outward and visible sign, the solemn application of some bodily and sensible thing or action to a meaning and purpose which in its own nature it hath not. In common life, we have many other signs to express our meanings, on occasions of great consequence, besides words. And no wonder then if, in religion, we have some of the same kind.
2. In a sacrament, the outward and visible sign must denote “an inward and spiritual grace given unto us;” that is, some favour freely bestowed on us from heaven, by which our inward and spiritual condition, the state of our souls, is made better. Most of the significative actions that we use in religion express only our duty toGod. Thus, kneeling in prayer is used to show our reverence towards him to whom we pray. And signing a child with the cross, after it is baptized, declares our obligation not to be ashamed of the cross ofChrist. But a sacrament, besides expressing on our part duty toGod, expresses on his part some grace or favour towards us.
3. In order to entitle anything to the name of sacrament, a further requisite is, that it be “ordained byChristhimself.” We may indeed use, on the foot of human authority alone, actions that set forth either our sense of any duty, or our belief inGod’sgrace. For it is certainly as lawful to express a good meaning by any other proper sign as by words. But then, such marks as these, which we commonly call ceremonies, as they are taken up at pleasure, may be laid aside again at pleasure; and ought to be laid aside whenever they grow too numerous, or abuses are made of them which cannot easily be reformed; and this hath frequently been the case. But sacraments are of perpetual obligation, for they stand on the authority ofChrist, who hath certainly appointed nothing to be for ever observed in his Church but what he saw would be for ever useful.
Nor doth every appointment ofChrist, though it be of perpetual obligation, deserve the name of a sacrament, but those, and no other, which are, 4. Not only signs of grace, but means also, whereby we receive the same. None but our blessedLordcould appoint such means; and which of his ordinances should be such, and which not, none but himself could determine. From his word, therefore, we are to learn it; and then, as we hope to attain the end, we must use the means. But when it is said that the sacraments are means of grace, we are not to understand either that the performance of the mereoutward action doth, by its own virtue, produce a spiritual effect in us, or thatGodhath annexed any such effect to that alone; but that he will accompany the action with his blessing, provided it be done as it ought, with those qualifications which he requires. And therefore, unless we fulfil the condition, we must not expect the benefit.
Further, calling the sacraments means of grace, doth not signify them to be means by which we merit grace; for nothing but the sufferings of our blessedSaviourcan do that for us; but means by which what he hath merited is conveyed to us.
Nor yet are they the only means of conveying grace; for reading, and hearing, and meditating upon the word ofGod, are part of the things which he hath appointed for this end; and prayer is another part, accompanied with an express promise, that, if we “ask, we shall receive.” (John xvi. 24.) But these, not being such actions as figure out and represent the benefits which they derive to us, though they are means of grace, are not signs of it, and therefore do not come under the notion of sacraments.
But, 5. A sacrament is not only a sign or representation of some heavenly favour, and a means whereby we receive it, but also “a pledge to assure us thereof.” Not that anything can give us a greater assurance, in point of reason, of any blessing fromGod, than his bare promise can do; but that such observances, appointed in token of his promises, affect our imaginations with a stronger sense of them, and make a deeper and more lasting, and therefore more useful, impression on our minds. For this cause, in all nations of the world, representations by action have ever been used, as well as words, upon solemn occasions; especially upon entering into and renewing treaties and covenants with each other. And therefore, in condescension to a practice which, being so universal among men, appears to be founded in the nature of man,Godhath graciously added to his covenant also the solemnity of certain outward instructive performances, by which he declares to us, that, as surely as our bodies are washed by water, and nourished by bread broken and wine poured forth and received, so surely are our souls purified from sin by the baptism of repentance, and strengthened in all goodness by partaking of that mercy which the wounding of the body ofChristand the shedding of his blood hath obtained for us. And thus these religious actions, so far as they are performed byGod’sminister, in pursuance of his appointment, are an earnest or pledge on his part, which was one ancient signification of the word sacrament; and, so far as we join in them, they are an obligation, binding like an oath on our part, which was the other primitive meaning of the word.—Abp. Secker.
SACRAMENTALS. (SeeSacrament.) A name conveniently given to those rites which are of a sacramental character,—such as confirmation and matrimony,—but are not sacraments in the proper and strict sense, as baptism and the holy eucharist.
SACRAMENTARY. In the Romish Church, a book containing the collects, together with thecanon, i. e. that part of the Communion Office which is invariable, whatever changes might occur in the other portions of the service.
SACRIFICE. (SeeMass, the Sacrifice of.) An offering made toGod. In strictness of speech, there has been but one sacrifice, once offered, and never to be repeated, the sacrifice of the death of ourLord Jesus Christ. He suffered death upon the cross for our redemption, and there, by the one oblation of himself, once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world, was once made, and once for all. (SeeCovenant of Redemption.) But, figuratively speaking, all Divine worship was anciently called a sacrifice—a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; but more especially has this term been applied to the celebration of the eucharist. Justin Martyr, says Dr. Waterland, is the first we meet with who speaks of the eucharist under the name of sacrifice or sacrifices. But he does it so often, and so familiarly, that one cannot but conceive that it had been in common use for some time before; and it is the more likely to have been so, because oblation (which is near akin to it) certainly was.
Irenæus, of the same [the second] century, mentions the sacrifice of the eucharist more than once, either directly or obliquely. Tertullian, not many years later, does the like. Cyprian also speaks of the sacrifice in the eucharist, understanding it in one particular passage of the lay-oblation. This is not the place to examine critically what the ancients meant by the sacrifice or sacrifices of the eucharist. But, asoblationanciently was understood sometimes of the lay-offering, the same may be observed ofsacrifice; and it is plain from Cyprian. Besides that notion of sacrifice, there was another, and a principal one, which was conceived to go along with the eucharistical service, and that was the notion ofspiritualsacrifice, consisting of many particulars, and it was on the account of one, or both, that the eucharist had the name of sacrifice for the two first centuries. But by the middle of the third century, if not sooner, it began to be called a sacrifice, on account of the grand sacrifice represented and commemorated in it; the sign, as such, now adopting the name of the thing signified. In short, the memorial at length came to be called a sacrifice, as well as an oblation: and it had a double claim to be so called; partly as it was in itself a spiritual service or sacrifice, and partly as it was a representation and commemoration of the high tremendous sacrifice ofChrist God-man. This last view of it, being of all the most awful and most endearing, came by degrees to be the most prevailing acceptation of the Christian sacrifice, as held forth in the eucharist. But those who styled the eucharist a sacrifice on that account took care, as often as need was, to explain it off to a memorial of a sacrifice, rather than a strict or proper sacrifice, in that precise view. Cyprian is the first who plainly and directly styles the eucharist a sacrifice in the commemorative view, and as representing the grand sacrifice. Not that there was anything new in the doctrine, but there was a new application of an old name, which had at the first been brought in upon other accounts.—Waterland.
Bishop Burnet remarks, that Christian writers called the eucharist anunbloody sacrifice, as being a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; and adds, “In two other respects it may be also more strictly called a sacrifice: one is, because there is an oblation of bread and wine made in it, which being sanctified, are consumed in an act of religion: to this many passages in the writings of the Fathers do relate. Another respect in which the eucharist is called a sacrifice is, because it is a commemoration and a representation toGod, of the sacrifice thatChristoffered for us on the cross; in which we lay claim to that as to our expiation, and feast upon it as our peace-offering, according to that ancient notion, that covenants were by a sacrifice, and were concluded in a feast on the sacrifice. Upon these accounts we do not deny, but that the eucharist may be well called a sacrifice; but still it is a commemorative sacrifice, and not propitiatory,” &c.—Burnet.
The ancients, says Bishop Cosin, called the whole communion “the sacrifice of praise,” as our Church doth: whereas the Romanists only call it a sacrifice, without any other addition. But it is not the sacrifice ofChristwhich we here speak of; for that is always pleasing toGod, and was absolutely perfect: but it is our own peace-offering, in commemoration thereof, in which there have been many failings, and therefore we desire and beg that it may be accepted in mercy.—Dean Comber.In this regard, and in divers others also, the eucharist may, by allusion and analogy, be fitly called “a sacrifice,” and theLord’stable “an altar;” the one relating to the other, though neither of them can be strictly and properly so termed. It is the custom of Scripture to describe the service ofGodunder the New Testament, be it either internal or external, by the terms which otherwise belonged to the Old: as, immolation, offering, sacrifice, and altar. So the evangelical prophet Isaiah, foretelling the glory and amplitude of the Christian Church, speaketh ofGod’saltar which shall be there, upon which “an acceptable offering shall be made.” (See also Rom. xv. 16; Phil. ii. 17; Heb. xiii. 10.) And indeed the sacrament of the eucharist carries the name of a sacrifice, and the table, whereon it is celebrated, an altar of oblation, in a far higher sense than any of their former sacrifices did, which were but the types and figures of those services that are performed in recognition and memory ofChrist’sone sacrifice, once offered upon the altar of his cross. The prophecy of Malachi concerning the Church under the New Testament, (see Mal. i. 10,) applied by the doctors of the Roman Church to their proper sacrifice, as they call it, of the mass, is interpreted and applied by the ancient Fathers, sometimes in general to all the acts of our Christian religion, and sometimes in particular to the eucharist: that is, the act of our prayers and thanksgiving for the sacrifice ofChristonce made for us upon the cross, as here we use in the Church of England. The Church of England therefore herein followeth the Holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers. (See also Heb. xiii. 16; Rev. viii 3; Ps. cxli. 2.)—Bp. Cosin.
Under which name of the Christian sacrifice, says Joseph Mede, first know, that the ancient Church understood not, as many suppose, the mere sacrament of the body and blood ofChrist, but the whole sacred action or solemn service of the Church assembled, whereof this sacred mystery was then a prime and principal part, and, as it were, the pearl or jewel of this ring, no public service of the Church being without it. This observed and remembered,I define the Christian sacrifice,ex mente antiquæ ecclesiæ, in this manner: An oblation of thanksgiving and prayer toGodtheFatherthroughJesus Christ, and his sacrifice commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine, wherewithGodhad first been agnized. So that this sacrifice, as you see, hath a double object, or matter; first, praise and prayer, which you may callsacrificium quod. Secondly, the commemorationChrist’ssacrifice on the cross, which issacrificium quo, the sacrifice whereby the other is accepted. For all the prayers, thanksgivings, and devotions of a Christian are tendered up untoGodin the name ofJesus Christcrucified. According whereunto we are wont to conclude our prayers with “throughJesus ChristourLord.” And this is the specification, whereby the worship of a Christian is distinguished from that of the Jew. Now that which we, in all our prayers and thanksgivings, do vocally, when we sayper Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum, the ancient Church, in her public and solemn service, did visibly by representing him, according as he commanded, in the symbols of his body and blood: for there he is commemorated and received by us for the same end for which he was given and suffered for us; that through him, we receiving forgiveness of our sins,GodourFathermight accept our service and hear our prayers we make unto him.
What time then so fit and seasonable to commend our devotions untoGod, as when theLambofGodlies slain upon the holy table, and we receive visibly, though mystically, those gracious pledges of his blessed body and blood. This was that sacrifice of the ancient Church, which the Fathers so much ring in our ears. The sacrifice of praise and prayer throughJesus Christ, mystically represented in the creatures of bread and wine.
But yet there is one thing more my definition intimates, when I say, “through the sacrifice ofJesus Christ, commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine, wherewithGodhad first been agnized.” The body and blood ofChristwere not made of common bread and common wine, but of bread and wine first sanctified by being offered and set beforeGodas a present, to agnize him theLordand giver of all: according to that,Domini est terra et plenitudo ejus: and “let no man appear before theLordempty.” Therefore, as this sacrifice consisted of two parts, as I told you, of praise and prayer, which, in respect of the other, I callsacrificium quod; and of the commemoration ofChristcrucified, which I callsacrificium quo; so the symbols of bread and wine traversed both, being first presented as symbols of praise and thanksgiving to agnizeGodtheLordof the creature in thesacrificium quod; then, by invocation of theHoly Ghost, made the symbols of the body and blood ofChristin thesacrificium quo. So that the whole service throughout consisted of a reasonable part and of a material part, as of a soul and a body; of which I shall speak more fully hereafter, when I come to prove this, I have said, by the testimonies of the ancients.
Again, theLord’ssupper is a sacrifice, according to the style of the ancient Church.
It is one thing to say, that theLord’ssupper is a sacrifice, and another to say, thatChristis properly sacrificed therein. These are not the same; for there may be a sacrifice, which is a representation of another, and yet a sacrifice too: and such is this of the New Testament, a sacrifice wherein another sacrifice, that ofChrist’sdeath upon the cross, is commemorated: thus the Papists gain nothing by this notion of antiquity, and our asserting the same; for their tenet is, thatChristin this sacrifice is really and properly sacrificed, which we shall show in due time that the ancients never meant.
To begin with this: as in the Old Testament the name of sacrifice was otherwhile given to the whole action in which the rite was used; sometimes to the rite alone; so in the notion and language of the ancient Church, sometimes the whole action of Christian service (wherein theLord’ssupper was a part) is comprehended under that name; sometimes the rite of the sacred supper itself is so termed, and truly, as you shall now hear.
The resolution of this point depends altogether upon the true definition of a sacrifice, as it is distinguished from all other offerings. Which, though it be so necessary, that all disputation without it is vain, yet shall we not find, that either party interested in this question hath been so exact therein as were to be wished. This appears by the differing definitions, given and confuted by divines on both sides; the reason of which defect is, because neither are deduced from the notion of Scripture, but built upon other conceptions: let us see, therefore, if it may be learned out of Scripture, what that is which the Scripture, in a strict and special sense, calls a sacrifice.
Every sacrifice is an oblation or offering: but every offering is not a sacrifice, inthat strict and proper acceptation we seek. For tithes, first-fruits, heave-offerings in the law, and whatsoever indeed is consecrated untoGod, are oblations or offerings; but none of them sacrifices, nor ever so called in the Old Testament. What offerings are then called so? I answer, burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, and peace-offerings. These, and no other, are called by that name.
Out of these, therefore, must we pick the true and proper ratio of a sacrifice: it is true, indeed, that these sacrifices were offerings of beasts, of beeves, of sheep, of goats, of fowls: but the ratio of anything consists not in the matter thereof; as the gowns we wear are still the same kind of apparel, though made of differing stuffs; these sacrifices also were slain, and offered by fire and incense: but neither is the modus of anything the ratio or essential form thereof. That therefore may have the nature and formale of a sacrifice which consists of another matter, and is offered after another and differing manner: those we call sacraments of the Old Testament, circumcision and the passover, were by effusion of blood; ours are not, and yet we esteem them nevertheless true sacraments; and so it may be here.
To hold you, therefore, no longer in suspense, a sacrifice, I think, should be defined thus: an offering, whereby the offerer is made partaker of hisGod’stable, in token of covenant and friendship with him, &c.: more explicately thus: an offering unto the Divine Majesty, of that which is given for the food of man; that the offerer, partaking thereof, might, as by way of pledge, be certified of his acceptation into covenant, and fellowship with hisGod, by eating and drinking at his table. St. Augustine comes toward this notion, when he defines a sacrifice (though in a larger sense)opus quod Deo nuncupamus, reddimus, et dedicamus, hoc fine, ut sanctâ societate ipsi adhæreamus: for to have society and fellowship withGod, what is it else but to be in league and covenant with him?
In a word, a sacrifice isoblatio fæderalis.—Joseph Mede.
SACRIFICATI. Christians who, to avoid condemnation before a heathen tribunal, offered sacrifice to an idol. When such persons, after the persecution was over, returned to the profession ofChrist, they were obliged to undergo a very rigid penance before they could be re-admitted into the Church. It must be observed thatSacrificatiis their denomination as penitents, after their return to the faith. Those who continued in idolatry were simply apostates. (SeeLibellaticiandThurificati.)
SACRILEGE. The act of violating sacred things, or subjecting them to profanation; or the desecration of objects consecrated toGod. Thus the robbing of churches or of graves, the abuse of sacred vessels and altars, by employing them for unhallowed purposes, the plundering and misappropriation of alms and donations, &c., are acts of sacrilege which, in the ancient Church, were punished with great severity.
SACRISTAN. The person to whose charge the sacred vestments, &c., in a church, are committed; now corrupted tosexton, which see. The sacristan is a dignitary in some foreign cathedrals, as was formerly the case at Glasgow, and the Chapel Royal of Stirling, in Scotland; in both of which places there were treasurers also. In most of the old cathedrals, however, the sacrist was the treasurer’s deputy, and a vicar choral. In those of the new foundation the sacrist is a minor canon, and has often the special cure of souls within the precinct. In Ireland the sacrist at Elphin was a dignitary, now usually styledTreasurer.—Jebb.
SACRISTY. The place in which sacred vestments, &c. are kept, answering to the modern vestry.
SADDUCEES. A famous sect among the Jews; so called, it is said, from their founder, Sadoc. It began in the time of Antigonus, of Socho, president of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and teacher of the law in the principal divinity school of that city. Antigonus, having often in his lectures inculcated to his scholars that they ought not to serveGodin a servile manner, but only out of filial love and fear, two of his scholars, Sadoc and Baithus, thence inferred that there were no rewards at all after this life; and, therefore, separating from the school of their master, they thought there was no resurrection nor future state, neither angel nor spirit. (Matt. xxii. 23; Acts xxiii. 8.) They seem to agree greatly with the Epicureans; differing however in this, that though they denied a future state, yet they allowed the power ofGodto create the world; whereas the followers of Epicurus denied it. It is said, also, that they rejected the Bible, except the Pentateuch; denied predestination, and taught thatGodhad made man absolute master of all his actions, without assistance to good, or restraint from evil.
SAINT. (SeeCommunion of Saints,Invocation of Saints.) A person either in the flesh or out of it, who is made holy by the indwelling of theHoly Spirit. The apostles in their Epistles use this word simply for baptized believers, that is, for all Christians.
The wordsaintsis of the same meaning with the wordholy; and, therefore, comprehends all Christians in the same manner as has been already explained. Havingcommunion, is being entitled to partake of benefits and kindnesses, and bound to make suitable returns for them. And thus Christians, or saints, have communion or “fellowship” with “theFather, from whom cometh down every good and perfect gift;” with hisSon Jesus Christ, (1 John i. 3; James i. 17,) through whom forgiveness and mercy is conveyed to us; with theHoly Ghost, whose sanctifying graces are conferred on such as duly qualify their hearts for the reception of them. And for these blessings we owe all thankfulness and all duty, in thought, word, and deed. Christians have also communion with the holy angels, as these “are ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. i. 14): and undoubtedly we ought to think of what they do for us, with an inward sense of gratitude and love. But, as we are unacquainted with particulars, we can make no particular acknowledgments: nor ought we to make any general ones, by outward expressions of respect; since “worshippingGodalone” is commanded, (Matt. iv. 10,) and worshipping angels condemned, in Scripture. (Col. ii. 18.)
With respect to those of our own nature, we are bound so far to hold communion even with the worst of unbelievers, as not only to do them every kind of justice, but sincerely to wish, and, if occasion offer, heartily endeavour, their good, both in body and soul. But to all “who have obtained the like precious faith with ourselves,” (2 Pet. i. 1,) we bear a still nearer relation; as being, in a peculiar sense, children of the same Father, disciples of the same Master, animated by the same Spirit, members of the same body. And these things oblige us to the utmost care of preserving, by prudent order and mutual forbearance, as much unity in the Church as we possibly can.
Such, indeed, as obstinately deny the fundamental doctrines, or transgress the fundamental precepts of Christianity, ought to be rejected from Christian communion. But to renounce communicating with any others, who are willing to admit us to it on lawful terms, is the way to cut off ourselves, not them, from the body ofChrist; who yet, we doubt not, will allow those on both sides to belong to his Church, who, through pardonable passions or mistakes, will not allow one another to do so.
And, as we should maintain communion with all proper persons, we should show our disposition to it in all proper ways: attend on the public instructions, join in the public worship, sacraments, and discipline, which ourLordhath appointed, and keep the whole of them pure from all forbidden or suspicious alterations or mixtures; avoid, with great care, both giving and taking needless offence, in respect to these or any matters; and by all fit means “edify one another in love” (Rom. xiv. 19; Eph. iv. 16): “obeying those who are set over us;” condescending to those who are beneath us; esteeming and honouring the wise and virtuous; teaching and admonishing the ignorant and faulty; bearing with the weak, relieving the poor, and comforting the afflicted.
Nor have wecommuniononly with thesaintson earth, but are of one city and one family with such as are already got safe to heaven. Doubtless, they exercise thatcommuniontowards us by loving and praying for the brethren whom they have left behind them. And we are to exercise it towards them, not by addressing petitions to them, which we are neither authorized to offer, nor have any grounds to think they can hear; but by rejoicing in their happiness; thankingGodfor the grace which he hath bestowed on them, and the examples which they have left us; holding their memories in honour, imitating their virtues, and beseeching the Disposer of all things, that, having followed them in holiness here, we may meet them in happiness hereafter; and become, in the fullest sense, “fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household ofGod” (Eph. ii. 19); “having, with all those that are departed in the true faith of his holy name, our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul, in his eternal and everlasting glory, throughJesus ChristourLord, Amen.” (SeeBurial Office.)—Abp. Secker.
SAINTS’ DAYS. (SeeFeasts.) Two of the most ancient monuments of ecclesiastical history that we possess, except the New Testament, are the accounts of the martyrdom of Ignatius and Polycarp, both disciples of St. John, written, at the time of their suffering, by the Churches of Antioch and Smyrna, of which they were bishops: and in those they mention, as ofcourse, their purpose of celebrating yearly the festival of their birthdays, of their entrance into a better life, for the commemoration of their excellent graces, and the incitement of others to imitate them. Thus did they provide that the “righteous should be in everlasting remembrance,” (Ps. cxii. 6,) and observed the more particular direction given to that intent in the Epistle to the Hebrews, “Remember them which have (had) the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word ofGod; whose faith follow, considering the end,” the event, “of their conversation.” (Heb. xiii. 7.) The rest of the primitive Churches appear to have followed the same rule; and each to have honoured the more eminent of their own martyrs, who had been usually their teachers also, by anniversary assemblies for preserving the reverence due to their characters, and offering up thanks toGodfor their examples.
But the increase of their numbers, and the adoption of the sufferers of one Church into the liturgies of another, and the admission of eminently good persons, who had “not resisted unto blood,” (Heb. xii. 4,) and the frequent grants which in subsequent ages were made, of so high a distinction, with little care of previous inquiry, multiplied the returns of these solemnities very improperly and inconveniently. Then, besides, a still greater evil was, that praises and panegyrics too soon grew to be immoderate, and afterwards impious. In the vehemence of national encomiums and exclamations, the saint was called upon as present, until at length he was thought so; and what at first was merely a bold and moving figure of speech, became at length in good earnest a prayer: which requested of a dead man, who was not able to hear it, not only that he would intercede withGodon behalf of his fellow-servants, but that he would himself bestow such blessings upon them, as no creature hath in his power. Things being found in this condition at the Reformation, it was necessary both to abolish entirely these unlawful addresses, and to limit the original sort of commemorations to a moderate list of persons, indisputably worthy of them. Accordingly no day is appointed by our Church for the celebration of any other than the principal saints mentioned in the New Testament, it being hard to stop, if more were added. And amongst these, St. Stephen is the only one who stands solely on the foot of being a martyr; as indeed it was fit that the foremost, the leader, of that “noble army” should be distinguished, and chosen, as it were, to represent the rest.—Abp. Secker.
When a Sunday and a saint’s day coincide, on the question what service shall be used, see the extracts from Shepherd and Bishop Cosin in the articleLessons.
SALUTATION. Having all repeated our creed together, and thereby given good proof that we are members of the Catholic Church, and such as have a right to join in the prayers thereof, we now prepare ourselves to pray. And since salutations have ever been the expressions and badges of that mutual charity, without which we are not fit to pray, therefore we begin with an ancient form of salutation, taken out of Holy Scripture: the minister commencing, salutes the people with “TheLordbe with you,” (Ruth ii. 4; Ps. cxxii. 8; 2 Thess. iii. 16,) and they return it with a like prayer, “And with thy spirit,” (2 Tim. iv. 22,) which words have been of early use in the Christian liturgies; and indeed the phrase is the very words of St. Paul; and St. John forbids us to say to any heretic “Godspeed.” (2 John, ver. 10, 11.) But when the minister hath heard every one in the congregation repeat his faith, and seen, by their standing up at it, a testimony of their assent to it, he can now safely salute them all as brethren and members of the true Church; and surely, as difference in religion creates great animosities, so agreement in one faith is an excellent means to beget charity, and to make minister and people heartily pray for one another: the people are going to pray, which they cannot do withoutGod’shelp, and therefore the minister prays that “theLordmay be with them,” to assist them in the duty, according to that gracious promise of ourSaviour, that when two or three are met to pray, he will be with them. (Matt, xviii. 20.) And since the minister prays for all the people, and is their mouth toGod, they desire he may, heartily and devoutly, offer up these prayers in their behalf, saying, “TheLordbe with thy spirit.”—Dean Comber.
By a man’s spirit in Scripture phrase is frequently meant the man himself. So that the people do in reality answer thus: MayGodbe with thee, as thou desirest he may be with us, in the oblation of our joint prayers. In this sense the word is used in the place whence this form is borrowed. (2 Tim. iv. 22.)—Dr. Bennet.
Till every person has finished the repetition of the creed, and there is silence in the whole congregation, the minister should not pronounce the words, “TheLordbe with you.” These words ought also to bepronounced by the minister in a standing posture, they being addressed to the people. And after the people have returned their answer, the minister should still stand and pronounce these words, “Let us pray;” and then give the people time enough to kneel down, that there may not be the least noise, and every person may be perfectly composed, and ready to join, when the minister begins the prayers.
And because these words, “TheLordbe with you,” and the reply of the people, “And with thy spirit;” and those also, “Let us pray,” are all of them directed and spoken, not to AlmightyGod, but only to men; namely, by the minister and people alternately to each other; therefore care should be taken that a difference be made in the tone of voice between these short forms of mutual compellation, and the prayers themselves.—Dr. Bennet.
In the Romish Church theangelical salutation, as they call it, consists of the angel’s salutation, and that of Elizabeth. It runs thus:Ave Maria, gratiæ plena: Dominus tecum: benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui. Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in horâ mortis nostræ. Amen.
The latter clause,Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, was added, they tell us, in the fifth century; but the last words,nunc et in horâ mortis nostræ, were inserted by order of Pope Pius V.
Urban II. ordered a bell to be tolled three times a day to put the people in mind of repeating this salutation, thatGodmight prosper the Christian arms in the recovery of the Holy Land; which custom, having continued about 134 years, fell at length into neglect; till Gregory IX. revived it, with the addition of a constant noon-bell.
The repeating of this salutation at the beginning of the sermon was first enjoined by St. Dominic, or, as some will have it, by Vincent Ferrerius. (SeeIdolatryandMariolatry.)
SALVATION (seeCovenant of Redemption) is taken in Scripture, 1. For deliverance or victory over outward dangers and enemies. (Exod. xiv. 13; 1 Sam. xiv. 45.) 2. For remission of sins, true faith, repentance, and obedience, and other saving graces of theSpirit, which are the way to salvation. (Luke xix. 9.) “This day is salvation come to this house.” 3. For eternal happiness hereafter, which is the object of our hopes and desires. Thus it is said, “to give knowledge of salvation to his people.” (Luke i. 77.) “Godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation.” (2 Cor. vii. 10.) And the gospel is called, the “gospel of salvation,” (Eph. i. 13,) because it brings the good news that salvation is to be had; it offers salvation to lost sinners; it shows upon what terms it may be had, and the way how to attain it; it also fits for salvation, and at last brings to it. 4. For the author of salvation. (Ps. xxvii. 1.) “TheLordis my light and my salvation,” he is my counsellor in all my difficulties, and my comforter and deliverer in all my distresses. 5. For the person who is theSaviourof sinners. (Luke ii. 30.) “Mine eyes have seen thy salvation,” says Simeon; I have seen him whom thou hast sent into the world, to be the author and procurer of salvation to lost sinners. 6. For the praise and benediction that is given toGod. (Rev. xix. 1.) “Alleluia, salvation and glory and honour and power unto theLordourGod.” The Hebrews but rarely made use of concrete terms as they are called; but often of abstracted. Thus, instead of saying,Godsaves men, and protects them, they say, thatGodis their salvation. Thus the word of salvation, the joy of salvation, the rock of salvation, the shield of salvation, the horn of salvation, &c., is as much as to say, The word that declares deliverance; the joys that attend the escaping a great danger; a rock where any one takes refuge, and where he may be in safety from his enemy; a buckler, that secures him from the arm of the enemy; a horn or ray of light, of happiness and salvation, &c.—Cruden’s Concord.
SAMARITANS. These were a mixed people, inhabiting the parts of Palestine between Galilee and Judea. They were in part descended from the remnant of the ten tribes, most of whom had been carried away by the Assyrians, blended with other distant nations, and settled in the same district with their conquerors. These different people, Babylonians, Cutheans, and other idolaters, for some time retained their respective forms of worship; but finding the country ravaged by wild beasts, they thought to propitiate the god of the country by restoring his worship; and one of the priests, whom they had carried away from Samaria, came and “dwelt at Bethel, and taught them how they should fear theLord.” (2 Kings xvii. 28.) After this, they were delivered from the plague of wild beasts, and embraced the law of Moses, with which they mixed a great part of their ancient idolatry. Upon the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, it appears that they had entirely quitted the worship of their idols.But though they were united in religion, they were not so in affection, with the Jews; for they employed various calumnies and stratagems to hinder their rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem; and when they could not prevail; they erected a temple on Mount Gerizim, in opposition to that of Jerusalem. (Ezra iv., v., vi.) The Samaritans at present are few in number, but pretend to great strictness in their observation of the law of Moses. They are said to be scattered, some at Damascus, some at Gaza, and some at Grand Cairo in Egypt.
SAMUEL, THE BOOKS OF. Two canonical books of the Old Testament, so called, because they are usually ascribed to the prophet Samuel.
These two books are styledReignsin the Greek version, and in the vulgar Latin,Kings; but in the Hebrew they are styled the Books of Samuel. But, since the first twenty-four chapters contain all that relates to the history of Samuel, and that the latter part of the First Book, and all the Second, include the relation of events that happened after the death of that prophet, it has been supposed that Samuel was author only of the first twenty-four chapters, and that the prophets Gad and Nathan finished the work. This is the opinion of the Talmudists, founded upon the following text of the Chronicles: “Now the acts of David, first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer.”
The Books of Samuel and the Books of Kings are a continued history of the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah; for which reason, the Books of Samuel are likewise styled the First and Second Books of Kings; and the two Books of Kings are also called the Third and Fourth Books of Kings.
The First Book of Samuel, otherwise called the First Book of Kings, comprehends the transactions under the government of Eli and Samuel, and under Saul the first king; as also the acts of David whilst he lived under Saul; and is supposed to include the space of about 101 years. Here we read, how the republic of Israel was changed into a monarchy, and what great evils they suffered in consequence thereof. We have here an account of the deposition of their first king, Saul, on account of his profane sacrificing, and his wilful disobedience to the commands ofGod, in relation to the destruction of the Amalekites; his treachery to David, and cruel pursuits of him; and, lastly, the tragical death of himself, and his son Jonathan, on Mount Gilboa.
The Second Book of Samuel, otherwise called the Second Book of Kings, contains the history of about forty years, and is wholly spent in relating the transactions of King David’s reign; the military exploits of that prince, and his administration both of the Church and of the State. With these are mixed the great failings and miscarriages of David, and, in consequence thereof, the many distresses he met with, and the various judgments and plagues inflicted upon him and his people byGod.
SANCTE BELL. A small bell which was rung when the “Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus, Deus Sabaoth” was said, to prepare the people for the elevation of the host.
Mr. Todd, in his additions to Johnson’s Dictionary, quotes from Warton’s History of Kiddington, as follows: “It was usually placed where it might be heard farthest, in a lantern at the springing of the steeple, or in a turret at the angle of the tower; and sometimes, for the convenience of its being more readily and exactly rung, within a pediment, or arcade, between the church and the chancel; the rope, in this situation, falling down into the choir, not far from the altar.” Thus in Walton’s Life of George Herbert: “And some of the meaner sort of his parish did so love and reverence Mr. Herbert, that they would let their plough rest when Mr. Herbert’sSaints’ bellrung to prayers, that they might also offer their devotions to God with him; and would then return back to their plough.” The small bell at Canterbury rung before service, is hung high in the central tower, and seems to answer to the ancient Saints’ bell. Mr. Todd adds, that “the little bell, which now rings immediately before the service begins, is corruptly called, in many places,Saucebell, orSauncebell.”
SANCTIFICATION. (SeeJustification.) The progressive conformity of the heart and life to the will ofGod, or our inherent righteousness, as distinguished from the righteousness of justification. To say that we detract from the necessity of inherent righteousness, or what is called the righteousness of sanctification, because we exclude it from the office of justification, and thus demolish the whole fabric of human merit, is about as reasonable as to say, that because we receive food by the mouth, and not by the ear or the eye, the eye and the ear are unnecessary membersin the human frame, and that no other bodily functions are requisite to the life of man. The man will die if, by tetanus, he is unable to open his mouth; but he will also die if, having received food into his mouth, he is unable to digest it; and yet the digestion of food, and its mastication, are processes entirely distinct, while the food itself is a gift from without. It is one thing to assert that a Christian must have inherent righteousness, and another to assert that his inherent righteousness is the ground of his acceptance with a righteousGod.
We may refer to Hooker for a clear exposition of the case: “Concerning the righteousness of sanctification, we deny it not to be inherent; we grant that, unless we work, we have it not; only we distinguish it as a thing different in nature from the righteousness of justification: we are righteous the one way, by thefaithof Abraham; the other way, except we do theworksof Abraham, we arenotrighteous. Of the one, St. Paul, ‘To him that worketh not, but believeth, faith is counted for righteousness.’ Of the other, St. John, ‘He is righteous which worketh righteousness.’ Of the one, St. Paul doth prove by Abraham’s example, that we have it of faith without works. Of the other, St. James, by Abraham’s example, that by works we have it, and not only by faith.
“St. Paul doth plainly sever these two parts of Christian righteousness one from the other. For in the sixth to the Romans thus he writeth:Being freed from sin, and made servants to God, ye have your fruit in holiness, and the end everlasting life.
“‘Ye are made free from sin, and made servants untoGod;’ this is the righteousness of justification.
“‘Ye have your fruit in holiness;’ this is the righteousness of sanctification.
“By the one we are interested in the right of inheriting; by the other we are brought to the actual possession of eternal bliss; and so the end of both is everlasting life.”
In another passage of the same discourse Hooker says: “It is a childish cavil wherewith, in the matter of justification, our adversaries do so greatly please themselves, exclaiming, that we tread all Christian virtues under our feet, and require nothing in Christians but faith; because we teach that faith alone justifieth: whereas, by this speech, we never meant to exclude either hope or charity from being always joined as inseparable mates with faith in the man that is justified; or works from being added as necessary duties, required at the hands of every justified man: but to show that faith is the only hand which putteth onChristunto justification; andChristthe only garment, which, being so put on, covereth the shame of our defiled natures, hideth the imperfection of our works, preserveth us blameless in the sight ofGod, before whom otherwise the weakness of our faith were cause sufficient to make us culpable, yea, to shut us from the kingdom of heaven, where nothing that is not absolute can enter.”
“It is not the question,” says Bishop Andrewes, “whether we have an inherent righteousness or no, or whetherGodwill accept or reward it; but whether that must be our righteousnesscoram rege justo judicium faciente, which is a point very material, and by no means to be forgotten; for, without this, if we compare ourselves with ourselves, what heretofore we have been, or if we compare ourselves with others, as did the Pharisees, we may take a fancy, perhaps, and have some good conceit of our inherent righteousness. Yea, if we be to deal in schools by argument or disputation, we may, peradventure, argue for it, and make some show in the matter. But let us once be brought and arraignedcoram rege justo sedente in solio, let us set ourselves there, we shall then see that all our former conceit shall vanish straight, and righteousness in that sense (that is, an inherent righteousness) will not abide the trial.”
“The Homilies of our Church,” as Dr. Waterland, adopting their doctrine, observes, “describe and limit the doctrine thus: ‘Faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear ofGod, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified: but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying;’ that is to say, from the office of accepting or receiving it; for as to the office of justifying in the active sense, that belongs toGodonly, as the same homily elsewhere declares. The doctrine is there further explained thus: ‘Because faith doth directly send us toChristfor remission of our sins, and that, by faith given us ofGod, we embrace the promise ofGod’smercy, and of the remission of our sins, (which thing none other of our virtues or works properly doth,) therefore the Scripture useth to say, that faith without works doth justify.’”
It is observed by Faber “that, in the progress of a Christian man from his original justification to his final salvation, these several states or conditions of righteousness successively appertain to him.
“First in order comes the forensic righteousnessof justification; a righteousness reputatively his, through faith, and on account of the perfect meritoriousness ofChrist.
“Next in order comes the inherent righteousness of sanctification; a righteousness infused into him by theHoly Spiritafter he has been justified.
“And last in order comes the complete righteousness of glorification; a righteousness acquired by him, when this corruptible puts on incorruption, and this mortal puts on immortality.
“The first righteousness, being the righteousness ofChrist, is perfect, but not inherent.
“The second righteousness, being the subsequently infused righteousness of ajustifiedChristian man, is inherent, but not perfect.
“The third righteousness, being the acquired righteousness of adepartedChristian man in his glorified state hereafter, is both perfect and inherent.”
SANCTIFY. (SeeSanctification.) To make holy, to treat as holy, or to set apart for holy services. (Exod. xix. 10, 22, 23; xxx. 29; Deut. v. 13; Isa. viii. 13; xxix. 23; Eph. v. 26; 1 Thess. v. 23.)
SANCTUARY. The holy of holies (Lev. iv. 6); the temple at large (2 Chron. xx. 8); the one place of national worship for the Israelites (Deut. xii. 5); also the place within the Septurn, or rails, where the altar stands in the Christian church.
By sanctuary is also meant the privilege of criminals who have fled to certain sacred places, to have their freedom from arrest and punishment, except ecclesiastical discipline, so long as they remain therein. This custom of sanctuary, which is now almost everywhere done away with, for the abuse to which it gave rise, was derived from the Levitical law of refuge, by which, atGod’sexpress appointment, six cities were made cities of refuge for the involuntary manslayer: and the altar of burnt-offerings was also a place of refuge for persons who had undesignedly committed smaller offences. (Deut. xix. 11, 12; Joshua xx.) In this Divine law the object seems to have been to markGod’shatred of sin, by showing that even accidental and unpremeditated offences were forgiven only by an especial exercise of his mercy. The corrupt custom of sanctuary in the middle ages was extended to the protection of those who knowingly and willingly committed the most heinous offences. (SeeAsylum.)
SANCTUS. (SeeTersanctus.)
SANDEMANIANS, or GLASSITES. A dissenting community, which had its origin in the preaching and deposition of one John Glas, presbyterian minister of the parish of Tealing, near Dundee, in 1730. His pupil, Robert Sandeman, brought his doctrine into England, and also into America, and from him the sect derives its name, though in Scotland it is still designated after its first founder. The Sandemanians are not a numerous sect.
The following is the account of the Sandemanians in the Registrar-general’s Return.
“The Sandemanians—sometimes called Glassites, both appellations being derived from the names of the founders of the sect—first came into notice in Scotland about 1728 or 1729; when Mr. Glass, a minister of the Scottish National Church, avowed opinions on Church government approaching very nearly those maintained by Congregationalists. Robert Sandeman appeared in advocacy of the same opinions about 1757, and formed a congregation in London in 1762.
“The prominent doctrine of the Sandemanians, on which they differ from most other Churches, relates to the nature of justifying faith, which Sandeman maintained to be ‘no more than a simpleassentto the Divine testimony, passively received by the understanding.’
“Sandemanians, also, observe certain peculiar practices, supposed by them to have been prevalent amongst the primitive Christians, such as weekly sacraments, love feasts, mutual exhortation, washing each other’s feet, plurality of elders, the use of the lot, &c.
“The number of Sandemanian congregations in England reported by the Census officers was six; the number of sittings (after an estimate for two chapels where the information was not given) was 956; and the number of attendants on the Census Sunday was:Morning, 439;Afternoon, 256;Evening, 61.
SANHEDRIM, or SENATE. A corrupted word, from the Greek,συνέδριον. (See St. Mark xiv. 55; xv. 1; St. Luke xxii. 66, where mention is made of theSynedrion: St. John xi. 47; Acts iv. 15.) The origin of the Sanhedrim is not without obscurity; for the council of the seventy elders established by Moses was not what the Hebrews understood by the name of Sanhedrim. Nor can we perceive this establishment under Joshua, the Judges, or the Kings. We find nothing of it after the captivity till the time of Judas Maccabeus. The tribunals established by Gabinius were very different from the Sanhedrim. This was the only court of itskind, and fixed at Jerusalem; whereas, Gabinius established five tribunals at five different cities, which tribunals do not appear to have been subordinate one to another. Lastly, it is certain that this senate was in being in time ofJesus Christ. (Vide supra.) But the Jews inform us themselves, that they then had not the power of life and death. (St. John xviii. 31.)—Calmet, ed. Taylor.The chief council of the Jewish nation, composed of seventy or seventy-two judges, and said to have taken its rise from the seventy elders appointed to assist Moses.
SARUM. (SeeUse.)
SATAN. A Hebrew word,שטן, signifyingan adversary,an enemy,an accuser. It is often translated adversary in our translation of the Bible, as also in the Septuagint and Vulgate. For example, (1 Sam. xxix. 4,) the princes of the Philistines say to Achish, “Send back David, lest in the battle he be an adversary to us, and turn his arm against us.” TheLordstirred up adversaries to Solomon in the persons of Hadad and Rezon. (1 Kings xi. 14, 23, &c.) Sometimes Satan is put for the Devil; for example, Satan presented himself among the sons ofGod, and theLordsaid unto Satan, “Whence comest thou?” (Job i. 6, 7, &c.) And in Psalm cix. 6, it is said, “Let Satan stand at his right hand;” and in Zech. iii. 1, 2, it is said, “Satan standing at his right hand; and theLordsaid unto Satan, ‘TheLordrebuke thee, O Satan.’” In the books of the New Testament, the word Satan is taken both in the sense of an adversary, and also for the Devil; for example,Christsays to Peter, (Matt. xvi. 23,) “Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me;” that is, Begone, O mine adversary, you that withstand what I most desire, and what I came into the world about. But most commonly Satan is taken for the Devil. (Matt. xii. 26; Mark iii. 23.) “If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself.” And in the Revelation, (xx. 2,) “He laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.” (See the articleDevil.)
SATAN, KINGDOM OF. In the Gospel, (Matt. xii. 26; Mark iii. 23, and Luke xi. 18,) our blessedLordrepresents Satan to us as a monarch, who has other subordinate devils obedient to him. Beelzebub is, as it were, their king. “If Beelzebub,” says he, “drives out devils, his kingdom is divided against itself; he labours for his own ruin; which is by no means credible; it is therefore false that I drive out devils in the name of Beelzebub.” St. Paul acknowledges in the Acts, (xxvi. 18,) that all those which are not in the religion ofJesus Christ, are under the empire and power of Satan. St. John (Rev. xx. 7) says, that, after a thousand years, Satan should be unbound, should come forth from hell, and subdue the nations.
To be delivered up to Satan is to be excommunicated, and surrendered to the Devil for a season, who visibly possessed this sort of people, that had deserved this punishment for their crimes or errors. St. Paul delivered up to Satan Hymeneus and Alexander, (1 Tim. i. 20,) that they might not learn to blaspheme. He also surrendered up to him the incestuous person of Corinth, (1 Cor. v. 5,) “For the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of theLord Jesus.”
WhenChristsent forth his disciples to preach in the cities and villages of Judea, they returned back with great joy, and told him, saying, “Lord, even the devils are subject to us through thy name.” (Luke x. 17, 18.)Jesustells them, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven;” where he seems to allude to that passage of Isaiah, (xiv. 12,) “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning;” and by which he insinuates that the kingdom of the Devil was coming to a period; that Satan should soon lose his power and dominion in the world, by the preaching and miracles of the apostles; and in Luke xxii. 31, he says, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not:” showing thereby what vain efforts the Devil would make to destroy the infant Church.