xi. 25,) proved to the Sadducees from the Old Testament; since he who
was then the GOD of their fathers “is not the GOD of the dead, but of the living.” (Matt. xxii. 32.) St. Paul, too, confirms the doctrine by most powerful reasoning; declaring, that if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is “CHRIST not risen;” and then is their “faith” vain; and he shows, in answer to cavillers, that, as CHRIST is risen, “the first-fruits,”—so shall “all be made alive,” exemplifying the probability and the manner of this by a familiar illustration. (1 Cor. XV. 12–23, 35–49.)
It shall be, too, a resurrection of the body, every one his own body as it “hath pleased” GOD to give him: although the “natural body,” “sown in corruption,—in dishonour,—and in weakness,” shall be “raised a spiritual body,—in incorruption, in glory, and in power.” The “earthly house” shall have “a building of GOD” (2 Cor. v. 1); the “corruptible” shall “put on incorruption;” and the “mortal, immortality.” Those that do “not sleep” shall “be changed,”—“caught up in the clouds to meet the LORD.” (1 Thess. iv. 17.)
We believe in this article, as the great truth it contains is for the glory of GOD’S eternal government, “the hand of the LORD shall be known towards his servants, and his indignation towards his enemies” (Isa. lxvi. 14); as it proves the value of the “gospel,” which has “brought life and immortality to light” (2 Tim. i. 10); as it consoles us under “afflictions,” which are “but for a moment:” since we know that our “REDEEMER liveth;” and that we “sorrow not,” therefore, “as others which have no hope” (1 Thess. iv. 13, with 14–18); and excites us “to have always a conscience void of offence toward GOD and toward men” (Acts xxiv. 16, with 15); since “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living GOD!” (Heb. x. 31)—of “him that is able to destroy both soul and body in hell!” (Matt. x. 28.) Therefore should we be “always abounding in the work of the LORD; forasmuch as we know that our labour in the LORD is not in vain.” (1 Cor. xv. 58.)
REVELATION. (1.) The Divine communication of the sacred truths of religion. (See _Bible_, _Scripture_.)
(2.) The Apocalypse, or prophecy of St. John, revealing future things. This is the last book of Holy Scripture, and it contains the revelations made to St. John at Patmos. It is quoted as an inspired book by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and other fathers of the first three centuries. Its authenticity and genuineness were never disputed until a prejudice was excited against it by the follies of certain Millenarians, who thought to support their conclusions by its authority. But the Church never doubted of its being a portion of Scripture, or of its Divine origin. Indeed, few books of the New Testament have more complete evidence of canonical authority than the Book of Revelation. It treats, 1. “Of the things which were then,” (i. 19,) i. e. of the state of the Church in the time of St. John; and, 2. “Of things which should be hereafter,” or of the history of the Church, its propagation, corruption, reformation, and triumph.
REVEREND. Venerable, deserving awe and respect. It is the title given to ecclesiastics of the second and third orders, the archbishops, and the bishop of Meath, being styled _most reverend_, and the bishops _right reverend_. Deans are _very reverend_. In foreign churches, where females are ordained to offices in the Church, abbesses and prioresses are called _reverend mothers_. It was so in our own Church before the Reformation, but, since that time, the custom of consecrating females to the service of GOD, except so far as all lay persons are so consecrated at holy baptism and at confirmation, has ceased. The more zealous Protestants at the time of the Reformation, and especially during the Great Rebellion, very strongly objected to the title of reverend, as implying too much to be given to a mere creature, and because of GOD only it may be said with propriety, “Holy and reverend is his name.” But dissenting preachers are in these days ambitious of the title, and few clergymen refuse it. The title of _reverend_ was frequently given, so late as the 17th century, to the judges of England.
RIGHTEOUSNESS, JUSTICE, HOLINESS. (See _Justification_ and _Sanctification_.)
RING, _in holy matrimony_. Immediately after the mutual promises or stipulations in the office of matrimony, the very ancient ceremony occurs of placing a ring on the finger of the woman. The object of this is stated in the prayer following, to be “a token and pledge” of the vow and covenant just made by the parties. Ritualists have supposed, that the ring was also a pledge or earnest of that honourable maintenance and participation in “worldly goods,” which are promised in that part of the office where the ceremony takes place. It has also been considered as a sign or seal of admittance of the wife to “the nearest friendship and highest trust,” which it was in the husband’s power to give. It is probable that there is weight in all these opinions, though the former seems to be the prominent one in the view of the Church.
Various analogies and figurative applications have sprung from the ceremony of the ring, some of which are thus stated by Dean Comber and Wheatly. The matter of which this ring is made is gold, to signify how noble and durable our affection is; the form is round, to imply that our respect shall never have an end; the place of it is on the fourth finger of the left hand, where the ancients thought was a vein which came directly from the heart, and where it may be always in view; and, being a finger least used, where it may be least subject to be worn out. But the main end is to be a visible and lasting token and remembrance of this covenant, which must never be forgotten; and if in ordinary bargains we have some lasting thing delivered as an earnest or pledge and memorial, much more is it needful here; and to scruple a thing so prudent and well designed, so anciently and universally used, does not deserve our serious consideration. Indeed, although the use of the ring in marriage used to be regarded as a remnant of Popery by ultra-Protestants, it seems now to be universally tolerated.
Besides the pledge of our truth, there is a visible pledge also, namely, _the ring_, which being anciently the seal by which all orders were signed, and all choice things secured, the delivery of this was a sign that the party to whom it was given was admitted into the nearest friendship and the highest trust, so as to be invested with our authority, and allowed to manage our treasure and other concerns, (Gen. xli. 42,) and hence it came to be a token of love (Luke xv. 22); and was used in matrimony, not only among the Jews and Gentiles, but the Christians also; who, in Clemens Alexandrinus’s time, gave their spouse a ring, to declare her worthy of the government of the family; and thus it hath been used ever since.—_Dean Comber._
The ring is, by positive institution, “a token and pledge of the covenant made” by the parties contracting marriage; and, as it is a permanent monument of the vows and promises then reciprocally made, so it ought to be a perpetual monitor, that these vows be religiously observed, and these promises faithfully performed.—_Shepherd._
RING, _in investitures_. A ring was anciently given to bishops on their consecration, with these words, “Accipe annulum, discretionis et honoris, fidei signum; ut quæ signanda, signes; et quæ aperienda sunt, aperias; quæ liganda sunt, liges; quæ solvenda sunt, solvas.” It was worn on different fingers, most frequently on the middle finger of the right hand; and was a sign of the bridegroom’s espousal of the Church in her representative, the bishop.
Investiture with the ring and staff, which signified a spiritual character and office, was always claimed by the Church, though sometimes unjustly usurped by temporal princes.
RITES. (Lat. _ritus_.) Religious observances prescribed by competent authority.
It is very visible, that in the Gospels and Epistles there are but few rules laid down as to ritual matters. In the Epistles there are some general rules given, that must apply in a great many cases; such as, “Let all things be done to edification, to order, and to peace” (Rom. xiv. 19; 1 Cor. xiv. 40): and in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus many rules are given in such general words, as, “Lay hands suddenly on no man,” that, in order to the guiding of particular cases by them, many distinctions and specialities were to be interposed, to making them practicable and useful. In matters that are merely ritual, the state of mankind in different climates and ages is apt to vary; and the same things, that in one scene of human nature may look grave, and seem fit for any society, may in another age look light, and dissipate men’s thoughts. It is also evident, that there is not a system of rules given in the New Testament about all these; and yet a due method in them is necessary, to maintain the order and decency that become Divine things. This seems to be a part of the gospel “liberty,” that it is not “a law of ordinances” (Gal. ii. 4; iv. 9; v. 1); these things being left to be varied according to the diversities of mankind. (See _Article 34_.)
The Jewish religion was delivered to one nation, and the main parts of it were to be performed in one place: they were also to be limited in rituals, lest they might have taken some practices from their neighbours round about them, and so by the use of their rites have rendered idolatrous practices more familiar and acceptable to them. And yet they had many rites among them in our SAVIOUR’S time, which are not mentioned in any part of the Old Testament: such was the whole constitution of their synagogues, with all the service and officers that belonged to them; they had a baptism among them, besides several rites added to the paschal service. Our SAVIOUR reproved them for none of these: he went to their synagogues: and, though he reproved them for overvaluing their rites, for preferring them to the laws of GOD, and making these void by their traditions, yet he does not condemn them for the use of them. And, while of the greater precepts he says, “these things ye ought to have done,” he adds, concerning their rites and lesser matters, “and not to have left the other undone.” (Matt. xxiii. 23.)
If then such a liberty was allowed in so limited a religion, it seems highly suitable to the sublimer state of the Christian liberty, that there should be room left for such appointments and alterations as the different state of times and places should require. In such rules we ought to acquiesce. Nor can we assign any other bounds to our submission in this case, than those which the gospel has limited. “We must obey GOD rather than man” (Acts v. 29); and we must in the first place “render to GOD the things that are GOD’S,” and then “give to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s.” (Matt. xxii. 21.) So that if either Church or State have power to make rules and laws in such matters, they must have this extent given them—that, till they break in upon the laws of GOD and the gospel, we must be bound to obey them. A mean cannot be put here; either they have no power at all, or they have a power that must go to everything that is not forbid by any law of GOD. This is the only measure that can be given in this matter.—_Bp. Burnet._ (See _Ceremonies_.)
RITUAL. A book or manual in which is given the order and forms to be observed in the celebration of Divine service, the administration of the sacraments, and, in general, all matters connected with external order, in the performance of sacred offices.
Palmer says, the English ritual resembles that of the Eastern Church in the circumstance of combining all the offices of the Church in one volume. The Euchologium, or ritual of the Greeks, now comprises the offices for morning and evening prayer, the liturgy or eucharist, baptism, litany, orders, &c. The Western Churches have more commonly divided these offices into at least four parts, entitled, the _breviary_, the _missal_ or liturgical book, the _ritual_, and the _pontifical_. The ritual and pontifical correspond to that part of the English ritual which begins with the Office of Baptism. The ritual, (termed in the English churches of Salisbury and York, and elsewhere, _manual_,) comprised all those occasional offices of the Church which a presbyter could administer. The pontifical contained those only which a bishop could perform.
The Euchologium, or ritual of the Greek Church, illustrated with notes by Goar, is well known and easily accessible, and furnishes abundant information with regard to all the rites of the Catholic Church in the East. The baptismal and some other occasional offices of the Jacobites or Monophysites of Alexandria, Antioch, and Armenia, and of the Nestorians, have been published by Assemani in his “Codex Liturgicus.” Many of the Oriental offices for ordination, as well as all the Western, are to be found in the learned treatise of Morinus, “De Ordinationibus.” The most valuable collection of records relative to the occasional offices of the Western Churches has been published by Martene, in his work, “De antiquis Ecclesiæ Ritibus.” This author, with indefatigable industry, transcribed and edited a multitude of ancient manuscripts, and collected whatever had previously been published. So that there is scarcely any branch of ritual knowledge which he has not greatly elucidated.
ROCHET. A linen garment worn by bishops under the chimere. It was their ordinary garment in public during the middle ages. The word rochet, however, is not of any great antiquity, and perhaps cannot be traced further back than the thirteenth century. The chief difference between this garment and the surplice was, that it was of finer material, and that its sleeves were narrower than those of the latter; for we do not perceive in any of the ancient pictures of English bishops those very wide and full lawn sleeves which are now used, which sleeves are now improperly attached to the chimere or black satin robe.
Palmer says, the rochette is spoken of in the old “Ordo Romanus,” under the title of _linea_; and has, no doubt, been very anciently used by bishops in the Western Church. During the middle ages it was their ordinary garment in public.
Dr. Hody says, that in the reign of Henry VIII., our bishops wore a scarlet garment under the rochette; and that, in the time of Edward VI., they wore a scarlet chimere, like the doctors’ dress at Oxford, over the rochette; which, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, was changed for the black satin chimere used at present.—_History of Convocations_, p. 141. (See _Chimere_.)
The chimere seems to resemble the garment used by bishops during the middle ages, and called _mantelletum_; which was a sort of cope, with apertures for the arms to pass through. (See _Du Cange’s Glossary_.)
In some foreign cathedrals, the canons wore rochets, as well as other episcopal ornaments.
ROGATION DAYS. (So called from _rogare_, “to beseech.”) They are three days immediately before the festival of Ascension. These litanic or Rogation days were first instituted by Mamertus, bishop of Vienne, in the fifth century. Mamertus was not the originator of litanical supplications, but was the first institutor of the Rogation fast, and the first who applied the use of litanies on these days, accompanied with public processions, which continued till the æra of the Reformation. In the Church of England it has been thought fit to continue the observance of these days as private fasts. There is no office, or order of prayer, or even single collect, appointed for the Rogation days in the Prayer Book; but among the homilies there is one designed for the improvement of these days. (See _Perambulation_.) The requisitions of the Church are “abstinence” and “extraordinary acts and exercises of devotion.” Perambulations were in many parishes observed in the Rogation days. (See _Perambulation_.)
ROMANISM. (See _Pope_ and _Popery_, _Church of Rome_, _Council of Trent_.) Romanism consists of the addition of certain anti-scriptural propositions to the articles of the ancient catholic faith.
In addition to what is said in the other articles referred to, we may state the tenets of Romanism in the words of Morgan, in his interesting work on the “Verities of the Church.”
1. The spiritual, and, by the Ultramontane party, the temporal, autocracy of the Bishop of Rome.
2. The compulsory celibacy of the priesthood.
3. Solitary priestly communion, or private mass.
4. The denial of the chalice, or the cup of the blood of our LORD, to the laity.
5. Compulsory auricular confession.
6. Mariolatry, or the adoration of the Blessed Virgin.
7. Hagiolatry, or the adoration of canonized saints.
8. Transubstantiation.
9. The invention of purgatory.
10. The doctrine of supererogatory merits.
11. Limitation of the Catholic Church of CHRIST to one episcopate.
12. The image and relic system.
13. The doctrines of papal pardons, indulgences, and dispensations.
14. The interpolation of the Apocrypha into the rule of faith.
15. Interdiction of the reading of the Scriptures, except by special permission.
(For the form of reconciling Roman Catholics to the Catholic Church of England, see _Abjuration_.)
ROMAN CATHOLICS. Those Christians who follow the doctrines and discipline of the Church of Rome.
The doctrine of that Church may be seen in Pope Pius’s Creed, and its discipline under various articles relating to the Christians. (See _Church of Rome_, _Baptism_, _Eucharist_, &c., _Bishops_, _Presbyters_, _Deacons_, &c., &c., &c.)
We shall here unite in one point of view the several errors of the Romish Church, and its deviations from the practice of the primitive Church. These are:
1. The granting absolution before penance is performed.
2. The worship of angels, saints, relics, images, the cross, and the host in the eucharist.
3. Appeals to the bishop of Rome.
4. Admitting uncanonical books into the Scripture.
5. The absolute necessity of baptism; and the baptizing of bells.
6. The celibacy of the clergy, and their exemption from the power of the civil magistrate.
7. The exemption of children from the power of their parents.
8. Auricular confession, and confirmation made a sacrament.
9. The administering the eucharist in one kind only.
10. The abuse of excommunication, in deposing kings, and depriving magistrates of their civil rights, and burning heretics under pretence of discipline.
11. The consecration of the eucharist by muttering privately, _Hoc est corpus meum_, instead of public and audible prayer.
12. The use of interdicts and indulgences.
13. Offering of a lamb at Easter.
14. Original of Lent, and changing the manner of fasting.
15. Exemption of monks from the jurisdiction of the bishops.
16. Allowing of mendicants.
17. Disannulling the marriage of monks.
18. Forbidding the marriage of spiritual relations.
19. Making the marriage of cousin-germans to be incest.
20. Private and solitary mass.
21. Making the mass a sacrifice for the quick and dead.
22. Purgatory, and canonical purgation.
23. Prelatical and sacerdotal power.
24. Ordination of boys, and bishops, without a title.
25. Commutation of penance.
20. Allowing sanctuary for the worst of criminals.
27. Keeping the Scriptures and Divine service in an unknown tongue.
28. Swearing by the creatures.
29. The doctrine of transubstantiation.
30. Using unleavened bread and wafers in the eucharist.
31. Necessity of a visible head, and subjection to the pope of Rome.
The following is the return regarding Roman Catholics made in the Registrar-general’s Report of 1854.
“The Toleration Act of 1688, by which the Protestant Dissenters were relieved from many of the disabilities that previously attached to them, procured no change in the position of the Roman Catholics. They still remained subjected to the penalties inflicted by the various statutes which, since Elizabeth’s accession, had been passed for their discouragement. These were exceedingly severe. Apart from the punishments awarded for the semi-political offence of denying, or refusing to admit, the sovereign’s supremacy, the Acts of Recusancy (1 Eliz. c. 2, and 23 Eliz. c. 1) exposed them to considerable fines for non-attendance at the service of the Established Church; and by other statutes they were not permitted to establish schools in England, nor to send their children to be taught abroad—they were excluded from all civil and military offices, from seats in either house of parliament, and from the practice of the law,—they were not allowed to vote at parliamentary elections,—proselytes to Popery, and those who were the means of their conversion, were subjected to the penalties of treason,—and, by various oaths and tests, as well as by express provision, they were hindered in the exercise of their religious worship, and prevented from promulgating their doctrines. Their condition was, in fact, deteriorated in the reign of William III.—some enactments of especial rigour being sanctioned.
“Whether from the effect of these enactments, or from the natural progress of the principles of Protestantism, it is certain that at this time the number of professing Roman Catholics in England, who, in the reign of Elizabeth, were, according to Mr. Butler, a majority, or, according to Mr. Hallam, a third of the population, had considerably declined. A Report presented to William, divides the _freeholders_ of England and Wales, as follows—
Conformists 2,477,254 Nonconformists 108,676 Papists 13,856 ————————— 2,599,786
And the number of _persons_ of the Roman Catholic faith is said to be only 27,696. This statement, allowing for all probable deficiencies, sufficiently exhibits the great diminution which, from various causes, had occurred since the period of the Reformation.
“Not much alteration in the position of the Roman Catholics took place for nearly a century after the Revolution. As the temper of the times grew milder, many of the penal laws were not enforced; though, while the throne remained exposed to the pretensions of the Stuart family, the laws themselves continued on the Statute Book: indeed, some further measures were enacted during the agitations consequent upon the Roman Catholic Rebellion of 1715. When, however, in the person of George III., the Brunswick dynasty was firmly settled on the throne, a course of mitigating legislation was commenced, which gradually relieved the Roman Catholics from all restraints upon their worship, and from nearly all the incapacities attached to their religion. In 1778, the first remedial act was passed, repealing the provision in the 10th and 12th of William III., by which the Roman Catholics were disabled from taking lands by descent. The Gordon riots of 1780 rather aided than retarded the advance of public sentiment towards additional relief; and, in 1791, Mr. Pitt, (having obtained from the chief continental universities, unanimous opinions that the pope possessed no civil authority in England, that he cannot absolve the subjects of a sovereign from their allegiance, and that the principles of the Roman Catholic faith do not excuse or justify a breach of faith with heretics,) procured the passing of another bill, by which, upon taking a form of oath prescribed, the Roman Catholics were secured against most of the penalties pronounced by former acts. They were left, however, still subjected to the Test and Corporation Acts, by which they were excluded from all civil and military offices, were prohibited from sitting in either house of parliament, and were disabled from presenting to advowsons. The removal of the chief of these remaining disabilities was zealously urged upon the parliament for many years successively. In 1813 an important measure, framed with this intention, was defeated in the Commons by a majority of only _four_: while, in 1821, a bill to the same effect passed through the lower House, but was rejected by the Peers. At length, in 1828, the Test and Corporation Acts were abrogated, and in 1829 the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act bestowed on Roman Catholics substantially the same amount of toleration which was granted to the Protestant Dissenters.
“The number of chapels from which returns have been received at the Census Office is 570; with sittings (after an allowance for 48 chapels making no return upon this point) for 186,111. The number of _attendants_ on the Census Sunday (making an estimated addition for 27 chapels the returns from which were silent on this point) was: _Morning_, 252,783; _Afternoon_, 53,967; _Evening_, 76,880. It will be observed, that in the morning the number of attendants was more than the number of sittings: this is explained by the fact, that in many Roman Catholic chapels there is more than one morning service, attended by different individuals.”
ROOD LOFT. A gallery running along the top of the rood screen, which in parish churches usually crossed the chancel arch, on which the _rood_ (i. e. the figure of our Blessed LORD on the cross) was placed, and on either side the Blessed Virgin and St. John. In large cross churches, the rood loft with its screen was usually of stone, and sometimes contained a chapel and altar within it. These more substantial rood lofts have been almost universally converted into organ lofts.
ROOD SCREEN. A screen separating the chancel from the nave, on which was formerly the rood loft.
ROOF. The following are the principal terms which occur in the description of a timber roof.
_Beam._—A horizontal piece connecting the principals of each truss, and stiffening and tying them together. According to its position, it is either a _tie-beam_, extending from wall to wall; a _collar-beam_, connecting the principals near the ridge; or a _hammer-beam_, extending horizontally from the wall, (and sometimes again from the principal rafters,) but cut off before it reaches the opposite side. It is only by its combination with other timbers, as braces, principal, and collar, that the hammer-beam serves the purpose of a beam in mechanical construction.
_King-post._ The middle post of each truss, resting upon the beam, and rising to the ridge.
_Rafters._ Timbers rising from the wall, and inclined towards each other till they meet at the _ridge_. The _principal rafters_ are let into the beam at their lower end, and into the king-post at their upper, and together with beam, post, and braces, where they occur, form the _truss_, which is the whole complication of carpentry, bearing the vertical weight of the roof, and delivering it upon the wall.
_Purlin._ A longitudinal piece extending from truss to truss, resting on the principal, and bearing the common rafters.
_Braces._ Curved pieces tenoned into the main timbers in various places and directions, and serving to stiffen and tie them together.
_Wall-plate._ A longitudinal piece laid on the top of the wall to receive the beams.
_Wall-piece._ The upright piece connecting the braces beneath a hammer-beam with the wall. This subject should be studied in the very valuable work of Mr. Brandon, “On the Open Timber Roofs of the Middle Ages.”
ROSARY, among the Roman Catholics, is a pretended instrument or help to piety, being a chaplet, consisting of five, or fifteen, decads or tens of beads, to direct the reciting so many _Ave Marias_ in honour of the Blessed Virgin.
Before a person repeats his rosary, he must cross himself with it: then he must repeat the Apostles’ Creed, and say a _Pater_ and three _Aves_, on account of the three relations which the Virgin bears to the three persons in the TRINITY. After these preliminaries to devotion, he passes on to his decads, and must observe to let himself into the mysteries of each ten by a prayer, which he will find in the books treating of the devotion of the rosary.
Some attribute the institution of the rosary to Dominic: but it was in use in the year 1100; and, therefore, Dominic could only make it more celebrated. Others ascribe it to Paulus Libycus, others to St. Benedict, others to Venerable Bede, and others to Peter the Hermit.
ROSECRUCIANS. A sect of philosophers in the early part of the seventeenth century, who combined much religious error and mysticism with their philosophical notions of transmutations, and of the chemical constitution of things. Their name is derived from _ros_, “dew,” which they held to be the most powerful solvent of gold; and _crux_, the “cross,” which in the chemical style signifies light, because the figure of the cross exhibits at the same time the three letters in the word _lux_. Now light, according to this sect, and in their absurd jargon, is the menstruum of the red dragon, i. e. the substance out of which gold is produced. The Rosecrucians then were alchemists, who sought for the philosopher’s stone by the intervention of dew and of light. These absurdities were associated with others in their system which it would be in vain to collect; but the ruling principle of their society seems to have been the imposing mystery in which they wrapped up everything which they knew, or pretended to know, as if the secrets of nature were made known to them, for the very purpose of being kept secret from all others. Of their leaders and religious fancies Mosheim gives the following summary:
At the head of the fanatics were Robert Fludd, a native of England, and a man of surprising genius; Jacob Behmen, a shoemaker, who lived at Goslitz; and Michael Mayer.
These leaders of the sect were followed by John Baptist Helmont, and his son Francis Christian Knorrius de Rosenroth, Kuhlman, Nollius, Sperber, and many others of various fame. An uniformity of opinion, and a spirit of concord, seemed scarcely possible in such a society as this; for as a great part of its doctrine is derived from certain internal feelings and flights of imagination, which can neither be comprehended nor defined, and is supported by testimonies of the external senses, whose reports are illusory and changeable, so it is remarkable that, among the more eminent writers of this sect, there are scarcely any two who adopt the same tenets and sentiments. There are, nevertheless, some common principles that are generally embraced, and which serve as a centre of union to the society. They maintain, that the dissolution of bodies, by the power of fire, is the only way through which men can arrive at true wisdom, and come to discern the first principle of things. They all acknowledge a certain analogy and harmony between the powers of nature and the doctrines of religion, and believe that the Deity governs the kingdom of grace by the same laws with which he rules the kingdom of nature; and hence it is that they employ chemical denominations to express the truths of religion. They all hold that there is a sort of divine energy, or soul, diffused through the frame of the universe, which some call Archæus, others Universal Spirit, and which others mention under different appellations. They all talk in the most obscure and superstitious manner of what they call the signatures of things, of the power of the stars over all corporeal beings, and their particular influence over the human race, of the efficacy of magic, and the various species and classes of demons. In fine, they all agree in throwing out the most crude, incomprehensible notions and ideas, in the most obscure, quaint, and unusual expressions.
RUBRICS. Rules and orders directing how, when, and where all things in Divine service are to be performed, which were formerly printed in a red character, (as now generally in an Italic,) and therefore called Rubrics, from the Latin _rubrica_ (_pro ruberica_, _à rubra_, _subaud. terra_, red earth; thence any _red_ colour). All the clergy of England solemnly pledge themselves to observe the rubrics.
The _rubric_, to which we here bind ourselves by express consent and promise, is upon a different footing from all other ecclesiastical laws. For without considering it as statute, and, as such, only upon the level with several other subsequent acts of parliament relating to our occasional ministrations, we are under this peculiar circumstance of obligation to observe it, that we have, by our subscriptions at both ordinations, by one of our vows at the altar for the order of priesthood, by our subscriptions and declarations of conformity before our ordinary, and repetition of them in the church before our congregations, and likewise by our declarations of assent and consent, as prescribed by the Act of Uniformity; I say, we have in all these several ways tied ourselves down to a regular, constant, conscientious performance of all and everything prescribed in and by the Book of Common Prayer, according to the usage of the Church of England. And seeing it hath been the wisdom of our Church to lay us under these engagements, in order to preserve exact uniformity in the public worship and all the liturgic offices; nay, since it hath been judged proper to carry us through a train of these stipulations before we can get possession of any benefice; and to make us renew them again and again, as often as we change our preferment, or obtain any new promotion; and seeing that we have entered (as we have professed) _ex animo_ into this covenant with the Church, and have deliberately renewed it as often as there hath been occasion; how frivolous is it for any of us to say, that the connivance, or the presumed consent, of our ordinary, or the private conveniency of ourselves or families, or the obliging of any of our parishioners, or the apparent inexpediency of adhering to the letter in some few cases, will dissolve this our obligation to conformity? Surely we must know, that these and the like allegations are quite out of the case; that, however our Church governors may dispense with our breaches of the rubric, however our people may acquiesce in them or approve of them, yet the question is, how far we are at liberty to dispense with ourselves on account of the forementioned engagements, to which GOD and the Church are made witnesses in as solemn a manner as they are to our personal stipulations at confirmation or matrimony; or whether we have not in this case precluded ourselves from all benefit of such exemption or dispensation, as might perhaps be reasonably alleged in several other merely statutable or canonical matters?
This indeed we must always take along with us, that our obligations to observe the rubric, how indispensable soever, are subject to this proviso; namely, that the rule prescribed be a thing practicable; which perhaps cannot be said of all rubrics in all churches, or in all places of the kingdom; nay, that it be a thing which falls within the minister’s power, so that he be not deprived of his liberty in acting, or restrained in it by the previous acts of other people, whereby that which would be practicable in itself is rendered not practicable by him. I will not positively say, that no other proviso is to be allowed of or admitted; because this cannot be determined absolutely, or otherwise than by a particular consideration of each rule or injunction under several different circumstances. But we may affirm in general, that we are under higher obligations to observe the rubric than any other ecclesiastical law whatsoever; that excepting a very few cases, or under some necessary limitations and reservations, we are bound to adhere to it literally, punctually, and perpetually; and that, whosoever among the clergy either adds to it, or diminishes from it, or useth any other rule instead of it, as he is in the eye of the law so far a nonconformist, so it behoves him to consider with himself, whether, in point of conscience, he be not a breaker of his word and trust, and an eluder of his engagements to the Church.—_Archdeacon Sharpe._
RURAL DEANS. The office of rural dean is an ancient office of the Church, which is mentioned as early as the time of Edward the Confessor, in one of whose laws mention is made of the dean of the bishop.
The proper authority and jurisdiction of rural deans, perhaps, may be best understood from the oath of office which in some dioceses was anciently administered to them; which was this: “I, A. B., do swear, diligently and faithfully to execute the office of dean rural within the deanery of D. First, I will diligently and faithfully execute, or cause to be executed, all such processes as shall be directed unto me from my Lord Bishop of C., or his officers or ministers by his authority. Item, I will give diligent attendance, by myself or my deputy, at every consistory court, to be holden by the said reverend father in GOD, or his chancellor, as well to return such processes as shall be by me or my deputy executed; as also to receive others, then unto me to be directed. Item, I will from time to time, during my said office, diligently inquire, and true information give unto the said reverend father in GOD, or his chancellor, of all the names of all such persons within the said deanery of D. as shall be openly and publicly noted and defamed, or vehemently suspected of any such crime or offence, as is to be punished or reformed by the authority of the said court. Item, I will diligently inquire, and true information give, of all such persons and their names, as do administer any dead man’s goods, before they have proved the will of the testator, or taken letters of administration of the deceased intestates. Item, I will be obedient to the right reverend father in GOD J., bishop of C., and his chancellor, in all honest and lawful commands; neither will I attempt, do, or procure to be done or attempted, anything that shall be prejudicial to his jurisdiction, but will preserve and maintain the same to the uttermost of my power.”—_God. Append._
From whence it appears, that besides their duty concerning the execution of the bishop’s processes, their office was to inspect the lives and manners of the clergy and people within their district, and to report the same to the bishop; to which end, that they might have knowledge of the state and condition of their respective deaneries, they had a power to convene rural chapters.—_Gibson._
Which chapters were made up of all the instituted clergy, or their curates as proxies of them, and the dean as president or prolocutor. These were convened either upon more frequent and ordinary occasions, or at more solemn seasons for the greater and more weighty affairs. Those of the former sort were held at first every three weeks, in imitation of the courts baron, which run generally in this form, from three weeks to three weeks; but afterwards they were most commonly held once a month, at the beginning of the month, and were for this reason called kalendæ, or monthly meetings. But their most solemn and principal chapters were assembled once a quarter, in which there was to be a more full house, and matters of greater import were to be here alone transacted. All rectors and vicars, or their capellanes, were bound to attend these chapters, and to bring information of all irregularities committed in their respective parishes. If the deans were by sickness or urgent business detained from there appearing and presiding in such convocations, they had power to constitute their subdeans or vicegerents. The place of holding these chapters was at first in any one church within the district where the minister of the place was to _procure for_, that is, to entertain, the dean and his immediate officers. But because, in parishes that were small and unfrequented, there was no fit accommodation to be had for so great a concourse of people, therefore, in a council at London, under Archbishop Stratford, in the year 1342, it was ordained that such chapters should not be held in any obscure village, but in the larger or more eminent parishes.—_Kennedy._
And one special reason why they seemed to have been formed in this realm after the manner of the courts baron is, because we find nothing of rural chapters in the ancient canon law.—_Gibson._
In pursuance of which institution of holding rural chapters, and of the office of rural deans in inspecting the manners of clergy and people, and executing the bishop’s processes for the reformation thereof, we find a constitution of Archbishop Peccham, by which it is required, that _the priests, on every Sunday immediately following the holding of the rural chapter, shall expound to the people the sentence of excommunication_.
And in these chapters continually presided the rural deans, until that Otho, the pope’s legate, required the archdeacons to be frequently present at them; who being superior to the rural deans, did in effect take the presidency out of their hands: insomuch that, in Edward the First’s reign, John of Athon gives this account of it: “Rural chapters,” says he, “at this day are holden by the archdeacon’s officials, and _sometimes_ by the rural deans.” From which constitution of Otho we may date the decay of rural chapters; not only as it was a discouragement to the rural dean, whose peculiar care the holding of them had been; but also, as it was natural for the archdeacon and his official to draw the business that had been usually transacted there, to their own visitation, or, as it is styled in a constitution of Archbishop Langton, to their own chapter.—_Gibson._
And this office of inspecting and reporting the manners of the clergy and people rendered the rural deans necessary attendants on the episcopal synod or general visitation, which was held for the same end of inspecting, in order to reformation. In which synods (or general visitation of the whole diocese by the bishop) the rural deans were the standing representatives of the rest of the clergy, and were there to deliver information of abuses committed within their knowledge, and to propose and consult the best methods of reformation. For the ancient episcopal synods (which were commonly held once a year) were composed of the bishop as president and the deans-cathedral or archipresbyters in the name of their collegiate body of presbyters or priests, and the archdeacons or deputies of the inferior order of deacons, and the urban and rural deans in the name of the parish ministers within their division; who were to have their expenses allowed to them according to the time of their attendance, by those whom they represented, as the practice obtained for the representatives of the people in the civil synods or parliament. But this part of their duty, which related to the information of scandals and offences, in progress of time devolved upon the churchwardens; and their other office of being convened to sit as members of provincial and episcopal synods, was transferred to two proctors or representatives of the parochial clergy in every diocese to assemble in convocation, where the cathedral deans and archdeacons still keep their ancient right, whilst the rural deans have given place to an election of two only for every diocese, instead of one by-standing place for every deanery.—_Kennedy._
At the Reformation, in the “Reformatio Legum,” it was proposed to invest rural deans with certain legal powers, but nothing was done in this respect. In the provincial synod of convocation, held in London, April 3, 1571, it was ordained, that “the archdeacon, when he hath finished his visitation, shall signify to the bishop what clergymen he hath found in every deanery so well endowed with learning and judgment, as to be worthy to instruct the people in sermons, and to rule and preside over others; out of these the bishop may choose such as he will have to be rural deans.”
But the office was not much used till of late years, when in most dioceses it has been revived, and decanal chapters have in many places been held with much apparent advantage.
In many foreign churches, archpresbyters, or provosts, seem to have discharged much the same function as the rural deans. The title of _Dean_ however, as employed in this case, is very common in Europe. In most dioceses of Ireland the office has been immemorially operative.
RUTH, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament.
This book is a kind of appendix to the Book of Judges, and an introduction to the Books of Samuel, and is therefore properly placed between them. It has its title from the person whose story is here principally related. The Jews make but one book of this and the Book of Judges, and probably the same person was the author of both. It was certainly written at a time when the government by judges had ceased, since the author of it begins with observing, that the fact came to pass in the days when the judges ruled: and he ends his book with a genealogy, which he carries down to David. Probably it was composed in that king’s time, before he was advanced to the throne.
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, signifying _hosts_ or _armies_. JEHOVAH SABAOTH is the LORD of Hosts. “Holy, holy, holy, LORD GOD of 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 our SAVIOUR’S having 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. That GOD has 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 of GOD is 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 the LORD’S day, which is regarded as a feast by the Church universal. (See _Lord’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 the GODHEAD; 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, so GOD, though he is FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST, is but one person. Hence the Sabellians reduced the three persons in the TRINITY to three characters or relations, and maintained that the WORD and HOLY SPIRIT are only virtues, emanations, or functions of the Deity; that he who is in heaven is the FATHER of 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 the HOLY GHOST.
Between the system of Sabellianism and what is termed the _indwelling_ scheme, 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 of CHRIST, says, “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the GODHEAD bodily.” Dr. Watts, towards the close of his life, introduced the Sabellian heresy, and wrote several pieces in its defence. His sentiments on the TRINITY appear to have been, that “the GODHEAD, the DEITY itself, personally distinguished as the FATHER, was united to the man CHRIST JESUS, in consequence of which union or indwelling of the GODHEAD he became properly GOD.” Mr. Palmer observes that Dr. Watts conceived this union to have subsisted before the SAVIOUR’S appearance in the flesh, and that the human soul of CHRIST existed with the FATHER from before the foundation of the world; on which ground he maintains the real descent of CHRIST from 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. (See _Seven Sacraments_.) In classical writers, observes Bishop Kaye, in his learned treatise on Tertullian, the word _sacramentum_ means an oath or promise ratified by a sacred or religious ceremony: thus, the oath taken by the military was called _sacramentum_. 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. Thus _sacramentum_ came to signify any religious ordinance, and in general to stand for that which in Greek is expressed by the word μυστήριον (mystery), any emblematical notion of a sacred import, any external act having an internal or secret meaning. If the word is understood in this extended sense, 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 word _sacrament_ in 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 the LORD. 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 promise _the sacrament of matrimony_ knitteth 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 sacraments _only_, but that of those rituals commanded in Scripture, which ecclesiastical use calls sacraments, by a word of art, two only _are 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 are _two only_, but _two 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 has CHRIST ordained in his Church? the answer being not simply _two_, 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 with CHRIST himself. “By baptism we receive CHRIST 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 between GOD and 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 our SAVIOUR CHRIST, and are to be continued, and received of every Christian in due time and order, and for such purpose as our SAVIOUR CHRIST willed 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 in_ CHRIST, there be but two, namely, baptism and the supper of the LORD. 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 the LORD’S supper are; and therefore absolution is no _such_ sacrament 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 the LORD. 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 in _such signification and meaning_ as the sacraments of baptism and the LORD’S supper 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 by CHRIST himself 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 to GOD. 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 of CHRIST. But a sacrament, besides expressing on our part duty to GOD, 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 by CHRIST himself.” We may indeed use, on the foot of human authority alone, actions that set forth either our sense of any duty, or our belief in GOD’S grace. 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 of CHRIST, 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 of CHRIST, 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 blessed LORD could 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 mere outward action doth, by its own virtue, produce a spiritual effect in us, or that GOD hath 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 blessed SAVIOUR can 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 of GOD, 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 from GOD, 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, GOD hath 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 of CHRIST and the shedding of his blood hath obtained for us. And thus these religious actions, so far as they are performed by GOD’S minister, 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. (See _Sacrament_.) 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 the _canon_, i. e. that part of the Communion Office which is invariable, whatever changes might occur in the other portions of the service.
SACRIFICE. (See _Mass, the Sacrifice of_.) An offering made to GOD. In strictness of speech, there has been but one sacrifice, once offered, and never to be repeated, the sacrifice of the death of our LORD 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. (See _Covenant 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, as _oblation_ anciently was understood sometimes of the lay-offering, the same may be observed of _sacrifice_; 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 of _spiritual_ sacrifice, 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 of CHRIST 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 an _unbloody 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 to GOD, of the sacrifice that CHRIST offered 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 of CHRIST which we here speak of; for that is always pleasing to GOD, 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 the LORD’S table “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 of GOD under 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 of GOD’S altar 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 of CHRIST’S one 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 of CHRIST once 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 of CHRIST, 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 to GOD the FATHER through JESUS CHRIST, and his sacrifice commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine, wherewith GOD had first been agnized. So that this sacrifice, as you see, hath a double object, or matter; first, praise and prayer, which you may call _sacrificium quod_. Secondly, the commemoration CHRIST’S sacrifice on the cross, which is _sacrificium quo_, the sacrifice whereby the other is accepted. For all the prayers, thanksgivings, and devotions of a Christian are tendered up unto GOD in the name of JESUS CHRIST crucified. According whereunto we are wont to conclude our prayers with “through JESUS CHRIST our LORD.” 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 say _per 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, GOD our FATHER might accept our service and hear our prayers we make unto him.
What time then so fit and seasonable to commend our devotions unto GOD, as when the LAMB of GOD lies 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 through JESUS 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 of JESUS CHRIST, commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine, wherewith GOD had first been agnized.” The body and blood of CHRIST were not made of common bread and common wine, but of bread and wine first sanctified by being offered and set before GOD as a present, to agnize him the LORD and giver of all: according to that, _Domini est terra et plenitudo ejus_: and “let no man appear before the LORD empty.” Therefore, as this sacrifice consisted of two parts, as I told you, of praise and prayer, which, in respect of the other, I call _sacrificium quod_; and of the commemoration of CHRIST crucified, which I call _sacrificium quo_; so the symbols of bread and wine traversed both, being first presented as symbols of praise and thanksgiving to agnize GOD the LORD of the creature in the _sacrificium quod_; then, by invocation of the HOLY GHOST, made the symbols of the body and blood of CHRIST in the _sacrificium 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, the LORD’S supper is a sacrifice, according to the style of the ancient Church.
It is one thing to say, that the LORD’S supper is a sacrifice, and another to say, that CHRIST is 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 of CHRIST’S death upon the cross, is commemorated: thus the Papists gain nothing by this notion of antiquity, and our asserting the same; for their tenet is, that CHRIST in 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 the LORD’S supper 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, in that strict and proper acceptation we seek. For tithes, first-fruits, heave-offerings in the law, and whatsoever indeed is consecrated unto GOD, 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 his GOD’S table, 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 his GOD, 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 with GOD, what is it else but to be in league and covenant with him?
In a word, a sacrifice is _oblatio 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 of CHRIST, they were obliged to undergo a very rigid penance before they could be re-admitted into the Church. It must be observed that _Sacrificati_ is their denomination as penitents, after their return to the faith. Those who continued in idolatry were simply apostates. (See _Libellatici_ and _Thurificati_.)
SACRILEGE. The act of violating sacred things, or subjecting them to profanation; or the desecration of objects consecrated to GOD. 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 to _sexton_, 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 styled _Treasurer_.—_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 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 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 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. (See _Communion of Saints_, _Invocation of Saints_.) A person either in the flesh or out of it, who is made holy by the indwelling of the HOLY SPIRIT. The apostles in their Epistles use this word simply for baptized believers, that is, for all Christians.
The word _saints_ is of the same meaning with the word _holy_; and, therefore, comprehends all Christians in the same manner as has been already explained. Having _communion_, 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 “the FATHER, from whom cometh down every good and perfect gift;” with his SON JESUS CHRIST, (1 John i. 3; James i. 17,) through whom forgiveness and mercy is conveyed to us; with the HOLY 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 “worshipping GOD alone” 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 of CHRIST; 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 our LORD hath 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 we _communion_ only with the _saints_ on earth, but are of one city and one family with such as are already got safe to heaven. Doubtless, they exercise that _communion_ towards 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; thanking GOD for 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 of GOD” (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, through JESUS CHRIST our LORD, Amen.” (See _Burial Office_.)—_Abp. Secker._
SAINTS’ DAYS. (See _Feasts_.) 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 of course, 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 of GOD; 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 to GOD for 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 with GOD on 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 article _Lessons_.
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 “The LORD be 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 “GOD speed.” (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 without GOD’S help, and therefore the minister prays that “the LORD may be with them,” to assist them in the duty, according to that gracious promise of our SAVIOUR, 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 to GOD, they desire he may, heartily and devoutly, offer up these prayers in their behalf, saying, “The LORD be 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: May GOD be 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, “The LORD be with you.” These words ought also to be pronounced 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, “The LORD be 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 Almighty GOD, 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 the _angelical 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, that GOD might 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. (See _Idolatry_ and _Mariolatry_.)
SALVATION (see _Covenant 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 the SPIRIT, 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.) “The LORD is 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 the SAVIOUR of 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 to GOD. (Rev. xix. 1.) “Alleluia, salvation and glory and honour and power unto the LORD our GOD.” The Hebrews but rarely made use of concrete terms as they are called; but often of abstracted. Thus, instead of saying, GOD saves men, and protects them, they say, that GOD is 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 the LORD.” (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 styled _Reigns_ in 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 of GOD, 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 by GOD.
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’s _Saints’ bell_ rung 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_, or _Sauncebell_.”
SANCTIFICATION. (See _Justification_.) The progressive conformity of the heart and life to the will of GOD, 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 members in 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 righteous GOD.
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 the _faith_ of Abraham; the other way, except we do the _works_ of Abraham, we are _not_ righteous. 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 unto GOD;’ 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 on CHRIST unto justification; and CHRIST the 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 of GOD, 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 whether GOD will accept or reward it; but whether that must be our righteousness _coram 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 arraigned _coram 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 of GOD, 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 to GOD only, as the same homily elsewhere declares. The doctrine is there further explained thus: ‘Because faith doth directly send us to CHRIST for remission of our sins, and that, by faith given us of GOD, we embrace the promise of GOD’S mercy, 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 righteousness of justification; a righteousness reputatively his, through faith, and on account of the perfect meritoriousness of CHRIST.
“Next in order comes the inherent righteousness of sanctification; a righteousness infused into him by the HOLY SPIRIT after 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 of CHRIST, is perfect, but not inherent.
“The second righteousness, being the subsequently infused righteousness of a _justified_ Christian man, is inherent, but not perfect.
“The third righteousness, being the acquired righteousness of a _departed_ Christian man in his glorified state hereafter, is both perfect and inherent.”
SANCTIFY. (See _Sanctification_.) 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, at GOD’S express 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 mark GOD’S hatred 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. (See _Asylum_.)
SANCTUS. (See _Tersanctus_.)
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 simple _assent_ to 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 the _Synedrion_: 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 its kind, 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 of JESUS 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. (See _Use_.)
SATAN. A Hebrew word, שטן, signifying _an 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.” The LORD stirred 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 of GOD, and the LORD said 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 the LORD said unto Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke 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, CHRIST says 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 article _Devil_.)
SATAN, KINGDOM OF. In the Gospel, (Matt. xii. 26; Mark iii. 23, and Luke