Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

h a real destruction or change of the thing offered; whereas an oblation is only a simple offering or gift, without any such change at all: thus, all sorts of tithes, and first fruits, and whatever of me&'s worldly substance is consecrated to God for the support of his worship and the maintenance of his ministers, are offerings, or oblations; and these, under the Jewish law, were either of living_ creatures, or other things; but sacrifices, in the more peculiar sense of the term, were either wholly or in part consumed by fire. They have, by di • vines, been divided into bloody and unbloody. Bloody sacrifices were made of living creatures; unbloody, of the fruits of the earth. They have also been divided intofx/n'a.'ori/ imfietratory, and eue/mristicat. The first kind were offered to obtain of God the forgiveness of sins; the second to pi ocure some favour; and the third, to express thankfulness for favours already received. Under one or other of these heads may ail sacrifices be arranged, though we are told that the Egyptians had six hundred and sixty-six different kinds; a number surpassing all credibility. Various have been the opinions of the learned concerning the origin of sacrifices. Some suppose that they had their origin in superstition, and were merely the inventions of men; others, that they originated in the natural sentiments of the human heart; others imagine that God in order to prevent their being of. fered to idols, introduced them into his service, though he did not approve of them as good in themselves, or as proper rites of worship. "But that animal sacrifices," says a U-arned author, "were not instituted by man, seems extremely evident from the acknowledged univer sality of the practice; from the wonderful sameness of the manner in which the whole world offered these sacrifices; and from the expiation which was constantly supposed to be effected by them.

"Now human reason, even among the most strenuous opponents of the di vine institutions, is allowed to be incapa tie of pointing out the least natural fitness or congruity between blood and atonement; between killing of God's creatures and the receiving a pardon for the violation of God's laws This consequence of sacrifices, when properly offered, was the invariable opinion of the heathens, but not the whole of their opinion in this matter; for they had also a traditionary belief among them, that these animal sacrifices were not only expiations, but vicarious commutations,

and substituted satisfactions; and they called the animals so offered [their ««4«^«] the ransom of their souls.

"But if these notions are so remote from, nay, so contrary to, any lesson that nature teaches, as they confessedly are, how came the v. hole world to practise the rights founded upon them > It is certain that the wisest Heathens,Pythagoras, Plato, Porphyry, mid others, slighted the religion of such sacrifices, and wondered how an institution so dismal (as it appeared to them,) and so big with absurdity, could diffuse itself through the world.—An advocate tor the sufficiency of reasuu [Tindall] supposes the absurdity prevailed by degrees ; and thi" priests who shared with their gods, and reserved the best bits fur themselves, had the chief hand iu this gainful superstition. But, it may well be asked, who were the priests in the days of Cain and Abel i Or, what gain could this superstition be to them, when the one gave away his fruits, and the other his animal sacrifice, withi.ut being at liberty to taste the least part of it r And it is worth remarking, that what this author wittily calls the bent bits and appropriates to the priests,appear to have been the skin of the burulofforing among the Jews, and the skin and feet among the Heathens."

Dr. Spencer observes [De Leg. Heb. lib. iii. j 2]that "sacrifices were looked upon as gifts, and that the general opinion was, that gifts would have the same effect with God as with man; would appease wrath, conciliate favour with the Deity, and testify the gratitude and affection of the sacrifice!-; and that fronithis principle proceeded expiatory, precatory, and eucharistical offerings. This is all that is pretended from natural light to countenance this practice. But, how well soever the comparison may be thought to hold between sacrifices and gifts, yet the opinion that sacrifices would prevail with God most proceed hi.va an obervation that gifts had prevailed with men ; an observation this which Cain and Abel had little opportunity of making. And if the coats of skin which God directed Adam to make were the remains of sacrifices, sure Adam could not sacrifice from this observation, when there were no subjects in the world upon which he could make these observations," [Kennicott's second Dissert, on the Offerings of Caiii and Abel, p. 201, &c.]

But the grand objection to the divine

oriRJn of sacrifices is drawn from the

[Scriptures themselves, particularly the

1 following [Jer. vii. 22,23:] " I spake not to your fathers, nor commanded them, at the time that 1 brought them out of Egypt, concerning the matters of burntofferings or sacrifices; but only this very thing commanded I them, saying. Obey my voice, and I witl be your God, and ye shall be my fleo/i/e." The ingenious writer above referred to, accounts for this passage [p. 153 and 209 ] by referring to the transaction at Marah [Exod. xv. 23, 26,] at which time God spake nothing concerning sacrifices: it certainly cannot be intended to contradict the whole book of Leviticus, which is full of such appointments. Another learned author to account for the above, and other similar passages, observes, "The Jews were diligent in performing the external services of religion; in offering prayers, incense, sacrifices, oblations: but these prayers were not offered with faith; and their ub!ations ■were made more frequently to their idols than to the God of their fathers. The Hebrew idiom excludes with a general negative, in a comparative sense, one of two objects opposed to one another, thus: ' I will have mercy, and nr.t sacrifice.' [Hosea, vi. 6.] For I spake not to your fathers, nor commanded them, concerning burnt-off<rings or sacrifices; but this thing I commanded them, saying, Obey my voice.'" [Lowth on Isaiah, xliii. 22, 24.] The ingenious Dp. Doddridge remarks, that, according to the genius of the Hebrew language, one thing seems to be forbidden, and another commanded, when the meaning only is, that the latter is generally to be preferred to the former. The text before us is a remarkable instance of this; as likewise Joel, ii. 13. Mat. vi. 19, 20. John, vi. 27. Luke, xii. 4, 5. and Col. iii. 2. And it is evident that Gen. xlv. 8. Exod. xvi. 8. John, v. 30. John, vii. 19. and many other passages, are to be expounded in the same comparative sense. [Paraph. on the New Test. sect. 59.] So that the whole may be resolved into the apophthegm of the wise man. [Prov. xxi 3:] "To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice." See KennicoU, above referred to; £dv>ards's History of Redemfition, p. 76, note; Owrum de Sacrijiciis; Warburion's Divine Leg b. 9. c 2 j Biihofi Law's Theory of Rel p. 50 to 54; Jennings's Jewish Anliq. vol. l.p. 26, 28; Fleury's Manners of the IsraelifM,partiv.ch.4.AAEa)fH on the Tyfies. SACRILEGE, the crime of profaning sacred things, or things devoted to God. The ancient church distinguished several sorts r.f sacrilege. The

, first was the diverting things appropriated tu sacred purposes to other uses.—

2. Robbing the graves, or defacing and spoiling the monuments of the dead —

3. Thobe were considered as sacrilegious persons who delivered up their Bibles and the sacred utensils of the church to the Pagans, in the time of the Dioclesian persecution.—4. Piofaning the sacraments, churches, altars, &c.—5. Molesting or hindering a clergyman in the performance of his office.—6. Depriving men of the use of the Scriptures or tbe sacraments, particularly the cup in the eucharist. The Romish casuists acknowledge all these but the last.

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 bis scholars that they ought not to serve God in 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 roaster, 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 of God to 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, that God had made man absolute master of all his actions, without assistance to good, or restraint from evil.

SAINT, a person eminent for godliness. The word is generally applied by us to the apostles and other holy persons mentioned in the Scriptures : bat the Romanists make its application much more extensive; as, according to them, all who are canonized are made saints of a high degree. See CanoniZation.

SALVATION means the safety or presi rvation of any thing that has been or is in danger; but it is more particularly used by us to denote our deliverance from sin and hell, and the final enjoyment of God in a future state, through the mediation of Jesus Christ. See articles Atonement, PropitiaTion, Reconciliation, RedempTion, and SAUCTiricATroN.

SAMARITANS, an ancient sect among the Jews, whose origin was in the time of king Kehoboam, under whose reign the people of Israel were divided into two distinct kingdom*, that nf Judah and that of Israel. The capital of the kingdom of Israel was Samaria, whence the Israelites took the name of Samaritans. Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, having besieged and taken Samaria, carried away all the people captives into the remotest parts of his dominions, and filled their place with Babylonians, Cutheans, and other idolaters. These, finding that they were exposed to wild bea»is, desired that an Israelitish priest might be sent among them, to instruct them in the ancient religion and customs of the land they inhabited. This being granted them, they were delivered from the plague of wild beasts, and embraced the law uf 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 of Jerusalem; and when they could not prevail, they erected a temple on Mount Gerizim. in opposition to that of Jerusalem. [See 2 Kings, xvii. 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.

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH, the collection ot the five books uf Moses, written in Samaritan or Phoenician characters; and, according to some, the ancient Hebrew characters which were in use before the captivity of Babylon. This Pentateuch was unknown in Europe till the seventeenth century .though quoted by Eusebius, Jerome, &c. Archbishop Usher was the first, or at least among the first, who procured it out of the East, to the number of five or six copies. Pietro della Va'le purchased a very neat copy at Damascus, in 1616 for M. de S.insi, then ambassador of France at Constantinople, and afterwards bishop of St. Malo. This book was presented to the Fathers of the | Oratory of St. Hnnnre, white perhaps it is still preserved; and from which father Moiinus, in 16jj, printed the | firttSamaritdiiPentateucli, which stands i in Le Jay's Polyglot, but mere correctly I

in Walton's, from three Samaritan manuscripts, which belonged to Usher. The generality of divines hold, that the Samaritan Pentateuch, and that cf the Jews, are one and the same work, written in the same language only in different characters ; and that the difference between the two texts is owing to the inadvertency and inaccuracy of transcribers, or to the affectation of the Samaritans, by interpolating what might promote their interests and pretensions; that the two copies were originally the very same, and that the additions were afterwards inserted. And in this respect the Pentateuch cf the Jews must be allowed the preference to that of the Samaritans; whereas others prefer the Samaritan as an original, preserved in the same character and the same condition in which Moses left it. The variations, additions, and transpositions which are found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, are carefully collected by Hottingtrr, and may be seen on confronting the two texts in the last volume of the English Polyglot, or by inspecting Kennicott's edition of the Hebrew B'ible.where the various readings are inserted. Some of these interpolations serve to illustrate the text; others are a kind of paraphrase, expressing at length what was only hinted at in the original; and others, again, such as favour their pretensions against the Jews; namely, the putting Gerizim for Ebal. Besides the Pentateuch in Phosnician characters, there is another in the language which was spoken at the time that Manasseh, first high priest of the temple nf Gerizim, and son-in-law of Sanballat, governor of Samaria, under the king of Persia, took shelter among the Samaritans. The language of this last isa mixture ofChaldee, Syriac, and Phosnician. It is called the Samaritan version, executed in favour of those who did not understand pure Hebrew; and is a literal translation, expressing the text word for word.

SANCT1F1CATION, that work of God's grace, by which we are renewed after the image of God, set apart f r his service, and enabled to die unto sin and live unto righteousness. It must be carefully considered in a twofold light.

1. As an inestimable privilege granted us from God, 1 Thess. v. 23.—And,

2. As an all-comprehensive duty required of us by his holy word, 1. Thess. iv.

3. It is distinguished from justification thus: Justification change!h cur state in law before God as a Judge; sanctitication changeth our heart and life before him as our Father. Justification pre

[ocr errors]

cedes, and sanctification follows, as the fruit and evidence of it. The suretyrighteousness, of Christ imputed is our justifying righteousness; but the grace of God implanted is the matter of our sanctification. Justification is an act done at once; sanctification is a work which is gradual. Justification removes the guilt of sin; sanctification the power of it. Justification delivers us from the avenging wrath of God; sanctification conformsus to his image. Yet justification find sanctification are inseparably connected in the promise nl God, Rom. viii 28 to 30 ; in the covei.ant of grace, Htb. viii. 10 ; in the doctrines and promises of the Gospel, Acts, v. 31; and in the experience of all true believers, 1 Cor. vi. 11. Sanctification is, 1. A divine work, and not to be begun or carried on by the power of man, Tit. iii.5. —2, A progressive work, and not perfected at once, Prov. iv. 18—3. An internal work, not consisting in external profession or bare morality. Psalms li. 6.—4. A necessary work necessary aj to the evidence of our state, the honour of our characters, the usefulness of our lives, the happiness of our minds, and the internal enjoyment of God's pre sence in a future world, John, iii. 3. Heb. xii. 14 Sanctification evidences itself by, 1. A holy rever.nce, Nehcm. v. 15.—2. Earnest regard. Lam. iii. 24. —3. Patient submission, Psalm xxtix. 9. Hence Archbishop Usher said of it, "Sanctification is nothing less, than for a man to be brought to an entire resignation of his will to the will of God, und to live in the offering up of his soul continually in the flames of love, and ;is a whole burnt offering to Christ."—4. Increasing hatred to sin. P»a! cxix. 133

5. Communion with God Isaiah, x:ivi. 8.—6. Delight in his wnrd and nrdinnnces, Psal. xxvii. 4.-7. Humility, Ji.b,

xlii. 5, 6—8. Prayer, Psal. cix 4 9.

Holy confidence, Psal. xxvii. 1.—10. Praise, Psal. ciii. 1 —11. Uniform obedience, John, xv. 8 SeeMarshall on Sanct{/icalion ; Dr. Owen on the Holy Sfiirit: Witsii (Economia, lib. iii. c. 12; Brown's JYat and Rev. Theology, p 447; Haiveis's Sermons, ser. 11, 12, 13; Scougars Works. See articles Holiness, Works.

SANCTIONS, Divink, are those actsor lawsof the Supreme Being which render anything obligatory. S<e Law.

SANDEMAN1ANS. a sect that originated in Scotland alxiut the year 17C8; where it is. at this time, distinguished by the name of Glassites, aflerits founder, Mr. John Glass, -who was a minister'if the established church in that

kingdom; but being charged with a design o! subverting the national covenant, and sapping the foundation of all national establishments, by maintaining that the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, was expelled from the synod by the church of Scotland. His sentimt nts are fully explained in a tract, pu!>li-lied at that time, entitled, "The Testimony of ihe King of Martyrs," and preserved in the first volume of his works. In consequence of Mr. Glass's expulsion, his adherents formed themselves iota churches, comforiiia!>le, in iheir institution and discipline, to what they ap. prehended to be the plan of the first efiurches recorded in the New Testament. Soon after the year 1755, Mr. Robert Sandeman, an elder in one of these churches in Scotland, published a series of letters addressed to Mr. Hmvvcy, occasioned by his Theron and Aspasio, in which he endeavours to show that his notion of faith is contradictor? tothe Scripture account of it, and cunld only serve to lead men, professedly holding the doctrines called Colvinistic, to establish their own righteousness upai their frames, feelings, and acts of faith. In these letters Mr. Sandeman attempts to prove that justifying faith is no more than a simple belief of the truth, or the divine testimony passively received by the understanding ; and that this divine testimony carries in itself sufficient ground of hope to every one who believes, it without any thing wrought in us, or done by us, to give it a particular direction to ourselves.

Some of the popular preachers, as they were called, had taught that it was of the essence of faith to believe that Christ is ours; but Mr. Sandeman contended, that that which is believed in true faith is the truth, and what wouid have been the truth though we had never believed it. They dealt largely :n calls and invitations to repent and believe in Christ, in order to forgiveness; but he rejects the whole of them, maintaining that the Gospel contained no offer but that of evidence, and that it was merely a record or testimony to be credited. They had taught thattlK.ugtt acceptance with God, which included the forgiveness of sins, was merely on account of tile imputed righteousness cf Christ, yet that none was accepted ef God, nor forgiven, till he repented ef his sin, and received Christ as the only Saviour; tut he insists that there is acc< ptance viith God through Christ for sinners, while such, or before "any act, exercisr, or exertion of their minds whatsoever:" consequently before repentance; and that "a passive belief of this quiets the guiltyconscier.ee, bei.ets hope, and so lays tlie foundation for love." It is by this passive belief of the truth that we, according to Mr. Sandeman arc justified, and that boasting is excluded. If any act, exercise, or exertion of the mind, were necessary to cur being accepted of Gnd, he conceives there would be whereof to glory; and justification by faith could not be opposed, as it is in Rom. iv. 4, 6, to justification by works.

The authors to whom Mr. Sandeman refers, under the title of "popular preachers," are Flavel, Boston, Guthrie, the Erskines, &x whom he has treated vith acrimony and contempt. "I would be far," says be, "from refusing even to the popular preachers themselves what they so much grudge to others,— the benefit of the one instance of a hardened si .ner finding mercy at last; fr.r I know ot uo sinners more hardened, rone greater destroyers of mankind, than they." There have not been want \n% writers, however, who have vindicated these ministers from his invectives, r.nd have endeavoured to sh<w that Mr. Sandeman's notion of faith, by exe'uding all exercise or concurrence rf the will with the Gsprl wny of sal v.ition, confounds the faith of devils with that of Christians, and so is calculated to deceive the souls cf men. It lias also been observed, that though Mr. 5andeman admits of the acts of faith rnd love as fruits of believing the truth, yet, "all his godliness consisting (as he acknowledges to Mr Pike) in love to that which first retimed him ,"it amounts to nothing but self-lave. And as selflove is a stranger to all those strong affections expressed in the cxixtli Psalm towards the law of God, he cannot admit of them as the language of a good man, but applies the whole palm to Christ, though the person speaking acknowledges, that "before he was afflicted, he went astray." Others have thought, that Irom the same principle it were easy to account for the bitterness, pride, and contempt, which distinguish the system; for set-love, say they, is consistent with the greatest aversion to Ml beings, divine or human, excepting so far as they beceme subservient to us

The chief opinion and practices in which this sect differs from other Christians, are, tluir weekly administration rf the Lord's supper; their love feasts, »>f which every member is not only al lowed but required to partake, and •which consist of thrir dining together at

each other's houses in the interval between the morning and afternoon service. Their kiss of charity used on this occasion at the admission of a new member, and at other times when they deem it necessary and proper; their weekly collection before the Lord's supper, for the support of the poor, and defraying other expences; mutual exhortation; abstinence from blood andthings strangled; washing each other's feet, when, as a deed et mercy, it might be an expression of love, the precept concerning which, as well as other precepts, they understand literally: community of goods, so far as that every one is tu consider all that he has in his possession and power, liable to the calls of the poor and the church , and the unlawfulness of laying up treasures upon earth, by setting th«m apait for any distant, future, and uncertain use. They allow of public and private diversions, so far as they are unconnected with circumstances really sinful; but apprehending a lot to be sacred, disapprove of lotteries, playing at cards, dice, &c.

They maintain a plurality of elders, pastors, or bishops, in each church; and the necessity of the presence of two elders in every act of discipline, and at the administration of the Lord's supper.

In the choice of these elders, want of learning and engagement in trade are no sufficient objection, if qualified according to the instructions given to Timothy and Titus; but second marriages disqualify for the office; and they are orciained by prayer and fasting, imposition of hands, and giving the right hand of fellowship.

In their discipline they are strict and severe, and think themselves obliged to separate from the commui ion and worship of all such religious societies as appear to them not to profess the simple truth for their only ground of hope, and who do not walk in obedience to it. We shall only add, that in every transaction they esteem unanimity to be absolutely necessary Gloat's Testimony of the King of Martyrs ; Sandrman's Let. ters on '/'heron and At/ratio, letter 11; Backus s Discourses on Faith and Us Influence, p. 7-30; Adams's View of Religions; Bellamy's Nature and Glory of the Gosfiel, Lon. ed. notes, p. 65-125; Hit fry of Dis. Lauren, p. 265, v. i. Fuller's Letters on Sandemanianism.

SANHEDRIM, a council or assembly of persons sitting together; the name whereby the Jews called the great council of the nation, assembled in an

[ocr errors]
« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »