[ Top of Page ]
Those who keep the seventh day as the sabbath. They are to be found principally, if not wholly among the Baptists. They object to the reasons which are generally alleged for keeping the first day; and assert, that the change from the seventh to the first was affected by Constantine on his conversion to Christianity. The three following propositions contain a summary of their principles as to this article of the sabbath, by which they stand distinguished. 1. That God hath required the observation 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 (by divine authority) changed from the seventh and last to the first day of the week, or that the Scripture doth no where require the observation of any other day of the week for the weekly sabbath, but the seventh day only. They hold, in common with other Christians, the distinguishing doctrines of Christianity. There are two congregations of the Sabbatarians in London; one among the general Baptists, meeting in Mill Yard; the other among the particular Baptists, in Cripplegate. There are, also, a few to be found in different parts of the kingdom, and some it is said, in America. A tract, in support of this doctrine, was published by Mr. Cornthwaite, in 1740. See Evans's Sketch of the Denominations of the Christian World; and books under next article.
[ Top of Page ]
In the Hebrew language, signifies rest, and is
the seventh day of the week: a day appointed for religious duties, and a total
cessation from work, in commemoration of God's resting on the seventh day; and
likewise in memorial of the redemption of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage.
Concerning the time whem the sabbath was first
instituted there have been different opinions. Some have maintained that the
sanctification of the seventh day mentioned in Gen. ii. is only there spoken by
anticipation; and is to be understood of the sabbath afterwards enjoined in the
wilderness; and that the historian, writing after it was instituted, there
gives the reason of its institution; and this is supposed to be the case, as it
is never mentioned during the patriarchal age. But against this sentiment it is
urged, 1. That it cannot be easily supposed that the inspired penman would have
mentioned the sanctification of the seventh day among the primaeval transactions,
if such sanctification had not taken place until 2500 years afterwards.--2.
That considering Adam was restored to favour through a Mediator, and a
religious service instituted, which man was required to observe, in testimony
not only of his dependence on the Creator, but also of his faith and hope in
the promise, it seems reasonable that an institution so grand and solemn, and
so necessary to the observance of this service, should be then existent.--3.
That it is no proof against its existence because it is not mentioned in the
partriarchical age, no more than it is against its existence from Moses to the
end of David's reign, which was near 440 years.--4. That the Sabbath was
mentioned as a well known solemnity before the promulation of the law, Exodus,
xvi. 23. For the manner in which the Jews kept it, and the awful consequences
of neglecting it, we refer the reader to the Old Testament, Lev. xxvi. 34, 35.
Neh. xiii. 16, 18. Jer. xvii. 21. Ezek. xx. 16, 17. Numb. xv. 23-36.
Under the Christian dispensation, the sabbath is
altered from the seventh to the first day of the week. The arguments for the
change are these: 1. As the seventh day was observed by the Jewish church in
memory of the rest of God after the works of the creation, and their deliverance
from Pharaoh's tyranny, so the first day of the week has always been observed
by the Christian church in memory of Christ's resurrection.--2. Christ made
repeated visits to his disciples on that day.--3. It is called the Lord's day,
Rev. i. 10.--4. On this day the apostles were assembled, when the Holy Ghost
came down so visibly upon them, to qualify them for the conversion of the
world.--5. On this day we find St. Paul preaching at Troas, when the disciples
came to break bread.--6. The directions the apostles give to the Christians
plainly allude to their religious assemblies on the first day.--7. Pliny bears
witness of the first day of the week being kept as a festival, in honour of the
resurrection of Christ: and the primitive Christians kept it in the most solemn
manner.
These arguments, however, are not satisfactory to
some, and it must be confessed that there is no law in the New Testament
concerning the first day. However, it may be observed that it is not so much
the precise time that is universally binding, as that one day out of seven is
to be regarded. "As it is impossible," says Dr. Doddridge,
"certainly to determine which is the seventh day from the creation; and
as, in consequence of the spherical form of the earth, and the absurdity of the
scheme which supposes it one great plain, the change of place will necessarily
occasion some alteration in the time of the beginning and ending of any day in
question, it being always at the same time, somewhere or other, sun-rising and
sun-setting, noon and midnight, it seems very unreasonable to lay such a stress
upon the particular day as some do. It seems abundantly sufficient that there
be six days of labour and one of religious rest, which there will be upon the
Christian and the Jewish scheme."
As the sabbath is of divine institution, so it is
to be kept holy unto the Lord. Numerous have been the days appointed by men for
religious services; but these are not binding, because of human institution.
Not so the sabbath. Hence the fourth commandment is ushered in with a peculiar
emphasis--"Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day." This
institution is wise as to its ends: That God may be worshipped; man instructed;
nations benefited; and families devoted to the service of God. It is lasting as
to its duration. The abolition of it would be unreasonable; unscriptural, Exod.
xxxi. 13; and every way disadvantageous to the body, to society, to the soul,
and even to the brute creation. It is, however, awfully violated by visiting,
feasting, indolence, buying and selling, working, woeldly amusements, and
travelling. "Look into the streets," says bishop Porteus, "on
the Lord's day, and see whether they convey the idea of a day of rest. Do not
our servants and our cattle seem to be almost as fully occupied on that day as
on any other? And, as if this was not a sufficient infringement of their
rights, we contrive by needless entertainments at home, and needless journeys
abroad, which are often by choice and inclination reserved for this very day, to
take up all the little remaining part of their leisure time. A sabbath day's
journey was among the Jews a proverbial expression for a very short one; among
us it can have no such meaning affixed to it. That day seems to be considered
by too many as set apart, by divine and human authority, for the purpose not
for rest, but of its direct opposite, the labour of travelling, thus adding one
day more of torment to those generous but wretched animals whose services they
hire; and who, being generally strained beyond their strength the other six
days of the week, have, of all creatures under heaven, the best and most
equitable claim to suspension of labour on the seventh."
These are evils greatly to be lamented; they are
an insult to God, an injury to ourselves, and an awful example to our servants,
our children, and our friends. To sanctify this day, we should consider it, 1.
A day of rest; not indeed, to exclude works of mercy and charity, but a
cessation from all labour and care.--2. As a day of remembrance; of creation,
preservation, redemption.--3. As a day of meditation and prayer in which we
should cultivate communion with God, Rev. i. 10.--4. As a day of public
worship, Acts. xx. 7. John xx. 19.--5. As a day of joy, Is. lvi. 2. Ps. cxviii.
24.--6. As a day of praise, Ps. cxvi. 12, 14.--7. As a day of anticipation;
looking forward to that holy, happy, and eternal sabbath that remains for the
people of God. See Chandler's two Sermons on the Sabbath; Wright on the
Sabbath; Watts's Hol. of Times and Places; Orton's Six Discourses on the Lord's
Day; Kennicott's Ser. and Dial. on the Sabbath; Bp. Porteus's Sermons, ser. 9.
vol. 1.; Watts's Sermons, ser. 57. vol. i.; S. Palmer's Apology for the
Christian Sabbath; Kennicott on the Oblations of Cain and Abel, p. 184, 185.
[ Top of Page ]
A sect in the third century that embraced the
opinions of Sabellius, a philosopher of Egypt, who openly taught that there is
but one person in the Godhead.
The Sabellians maintained that the Word and the
Holy Spirit are only virtues, emanations, or functions of the Deity; and held
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 salvation, he diffused himself on the apostles in tongues of
fire, and was then denominated the Holy Ghost. This they explained by
resembling God to the sun; the illuminated virtue or quality of which was the
Word, and its warming virtue the Holy Spirit. The Word, they taught, was
darted, like a divine ray, to accomplish the work of redemption; and that,
being reascended to heaven, the influences of the Father were communicated
after a like manner to the apostles.
[ Top of Page ]
A denomination in the fourth century, so called, because they always went clothed in sackcloth, and affected a great deal of austerity and penance.
[ Top of Page ]
Is derived from the Latinword sacramentum, which signifies an oath, particularly the oath taken by soldiers to be true to their country and general.--The word was adopted by the writers of the Latin church, to denote those ordinances of religion by which Christians came under an obligation of obedience to God, and which obligation, they supposed, was equally sacred with that of an oath. (See VOW.) Of sacraments, in this sense of the word, Protestant churches admit of but two; and it is not easy to conceive how a greater number can be made out from Scripture, if the definition of a sacrament be just which is given by the church of England. By that church, the meaning of the word sacrament is declared to be "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."--Accorcing to this definition, baptism and the Lord's supper are certainly sacraments, for each consists of an outward and visible sign of what is believed to be an inward and spiritual grace, both were ordained by Christ himself, and in the reception of each does the Christian solemnly devote himself to the service of his divine Master. (See BAPTISM, and LORD'S SUPPER.) The Romanists, however, add to this number confirmation, penance, extreme unction, ordination, and marriage, holding in all seven sacraments. (See POPERY.) Numerous, however, as the sacraments of the Romish church are, a sect of Christians sprung up in England, early in the last century, who increased their number. The founder of this sect was a Dr. Deacon. According to these men, every rite and every phrase, in the book called the Apostolical Constitutions, were certainly in use among the apostles themselves. Still, however, they make a distinction between the greater and the lesser sacraments. The greater sacraments are only two, baptism and the Lord's supper. The lesser are no fewer than ten, viz. five belonging to baptism, exorcism, anointing with oil, the white garment, a taste of milk and honey, and anointing with chrism, or ointment. The other five are, the sign of the cross, imposition of hands, unction of the sick, holy orders and matrimony. This sect, however, if not extinguished, is supposed to be in its last wane. Its founder published, in 1748, his full, true, and comprehensive view of Christianity, in two catechisms, octavo.
[ Top of Page ]
A general name given for all such as have held erroneous opinions respecting the Lord's supper. The term is chiefly applied among Catholics, by way of reproach to the Lutherans, Calvinists, and other Protestants.
[ Top of Page ]
An offering made to God on an altar, by means of
a regular minister: as an acknowledgment of his power, and a payment of homage.
Sacrifices (though the term is sometimes used to comprehend all the offerings
made to God, or in any way devoted to his service and honour) differ from mere
oblations in this, that in a sacrifice there is a real destruction or change of
the thing offered; whereas an oblation is only a simple offering or gift,
without any such change at all: thus, all sorts of tithes, and first fruits,
and whatever of men's worldly substance in consecrated to God for the support
of his worship and the maintenance of his ministers, are offerings, or
oblations; and these, under the Jewish law, were either of living creatures, or
other things; but sacrifices, in the more peculiar sense of the term, were
either wholly or in part consumed by fire. They have, by divines, been divided
into bloody and unbloody. Bloody sacrifices were made of living creatures;
unbloody, of the fruits of the earth. They have also been divided into
expiatory, impetratory, and eucharistical. The first kind were offered to
obtain of God the forgiveness of sins; the second, to procure some favour; and
the third, to express thankfulness for favours already received. Under one or other
of these heads may all sacrifices be arranged, though we are told that the
Egyptians had six hundred and sixty-six different kinds; a number surpassing
all credibility. Various have been the opinions of the learned concerning the
origin of sacrifices. Some suppose that they had their origin in superstition,
and were merely the inventions of men; others, that they originated in the
natural sentiments of the human heart; others imagine that God in order to
prevent their being offered to idols, introduced them into his service, though
he did not approve of them as good in themselves, or as proper rites of
worship. "But that animal sacrifices," says a learned author,
"were not instituted by man, seems extremely evident from the acknowledged
universality of the practice; from the wonderful sameness of the manner in
which the whole world offered these sacrifices; and from the expiation which
was constantly supposed to be effected by them.
"Now human reason, even among the most
strenuous opponents of the divine institutions, is allowed to be incapable of
pointing out the least natural fitness or congruity between blood and
atonement; between killing of God's creatures and the receiving a pardon for
the violation of God's laws. This consequence of sacrifices, when properly
offered, was the invariable opinion of the heathens, but not the whole of their
opinion in this matter; for they had also a traditionary belief among them,
that these animal sacrifices were not only expiations, but vicarious
commutations, and substituted satisfactions; and they called the animals so
offered the ransom of their souls.
"But if these notions are so remote from,
nay, so contrary to, any lesson that nature teaches, as they confessedly are,
how came the whole world to practise the rites founded upon them? It is certain
that the wisest Heathens, Pythagoras, Plato, Porphyry, and others, slighted the
religion of such sacrifices, and wondered how an institution so dismal (as it
appeared to them,) and so big with absurdity, could diffuse itself through the
world.--An advocate for the sufficiency of reason (Tindall) supposes the
absurdity prevailed by degrees; and the priests who shared with their gods, and
reserved the best bits for themselves, had the chief hand in this gainful superstition.
But, it may well be asked, who were the priests in the days of Cain and Abel?
Or, what gain could this superstition be to them, when the one gave away his
fruits, and the other his animal sacrifice, without being at liberty to taste
the least part of it? And it is worth remarking, that what this author wittily
calls the best bits and appropriates to the priests, appear to have been the
skin of the burnt-offering among the Jews, and the skin and feet among the
Heathens."
Dr. Spencer observes (De Leg. Heb. lib. iii.
&2.) that "sacrifices were looked upon as gifts, and that the general
opinion was, that gifts would have the same effect with God as with man; would
appease wrath, conciliate favour with the Deity, and testify the gratitude and
affection of the sacrificer; and that from this principle proceeded expiatory,
precatory, and eucharistical offerings. This is all that is pretended from
natural light to countenance this practice. But, how well soever the comparison
may be thought to hold between sacrifices and gifts, yet the opinion that
sacrifices would prevail with God must proceed from an observation that gifts
had prevailed with men; an observation this which Cain and Abel had little
opportunity of making. And if the coats of skin which God directed Adam to
make, were the remains of sacrifices, sure Adam could not sacrifice from this
observation, when there were no subjects in the world upon which he could make
these observations." (Kennicott's second Dissert. on the Offerings of Cain
and Abel, p. 201, &c.)
But the grand objection to the divine origin of
sacrifices is drawn from the Scriptures themselves, particularly the following
(Jer. vii. 22, 23.) "I spake not to your fathers, nor commanded them, at
the time that I brought them out of Egypt, concerning the matters of
burnt-offerings or sacrifices; but only this very thing commanded I them,
saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people."
The ingenious writer above referred to, accounts for this passage (p. 153 and
209.) by referring to the transaction at Marah, (Exod. xv. 23, 26,) at which
time God spake nothing concerning sacrifices: it certainly cannot be intended
to contradict the whole book of Leviticus, which is full of such appointments.
Another learned author, to account for the above, and other similar passages,
observes, "The Jews were diligent in performing the external services of
religion; in offering prayers, incense, sacrifices, oblations: but these
prayers were not offered with faith; and their oblations were made more
frequently to their idols than to the God of their fathers. The Hebrew idiom
ixcludes with a general negative, in a comparative sense, one of two objects
opposed to one another, thus: 'I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.' (Hosea, vi.
6.) For I spake not to your fathers, nor commanded them, concerning
burnt-offerings or sacrifices; but this thing I commanded them, saying, Obey my
voice.'" (Lowth on Isaiah, xliii. 22, 24.) The ingenious Dr. Doddridge
remarks, that, according to the genius of the Hebrew language, one thing seems
to be forbidden, and another commanded, when the meaning only is, that the
latter is generally to be preferred to the former. The text before us is a
remarkable instance of this; as likewise Joel, ii. 13. Matt. vi. 19, 20. John,
vi. 27. Luke, xii. 4, 5. and Col. iii. 2. And it is evident that Gen. xlv. 8.
Exod. xvi. 8. John, v. 30. John, vii. 19. and many other passages, are to be
expounded in the same comparative sense. (Paraph. on the New Test. sect. 59.)
So that the whole may be resolved into the apophthegm of the wise man. (Prov.
xxi. 3:) "To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than
sacrifice." See Kennicott, above referred to; Edwards's History of
Redemption, p. 76. note: Outram de Sacrificiis; Warburton's Divine Leg. b. 9,
c. 2; Bishop Law's Theory of Rel. p. 50 to 54; Jennings's Jewish antiq. vol. i.
p. 26, 28; Fleury's Manners of the Israelites, part iv. ch. 4.; McEwen on the
Types.
[ Top of Page ]
The crime of profaning sacred things, or things devoted to God. The ancient church distinguished several sorts of sacrilege. The first was the diverting things appropriated to sacred purposes to ther uses.--2. Robbing the graves, or defacing and spoiling the monuments of the dead.--3. Those were considered as sacrilegious persons who delivered up their Bibles and the sacred utensils of the church to the Pagans, in the time of the Dioclesian persecution.--4. Profaning the sacraments, churches, altars, &c.--5. Molesting or hindering a clergyman in the performance of his office.--6. Depriving men of the use of the Scriptures or the sacraments, particularly the cup in the eucharist. The Romish casuists acknowledge all these but the last.
[ Top of Page ]
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, thet God had made man absolute master of all his actions, without assistance to good, or restraint from evil.
[ Top of Page ]
A person eminent for godliness. The word is generally applied by us to the apostles and other holy persons mentioned in the Scriptures: but the Romanists make its application much more extensive; as, according to them, all who are cannonized are made saints of a high degree. See CANONIZATION.
[ Top of Page ]
Means the safety or preservation of any thing that has been or is in danger; but it is more particularly used by us to denote our deliverance from sin and hell, and the final enjoyment of God in a future state, through the mediation of Jesus Christ. See articles ATONEMENT, PROPITIATION, RECONCILIATION, REDEMPTION and SANCTIFICATION.
[ Top of Page ]
An ancient sect among the Jews, whose origin was in the time of king Rehoboam, under whose reign the people of Israel were divided into two distinct kingdoms, that of Judah and that of Israel. The capital of the kingdom of Israel was Samaria, whence the Israelites took the name of Samaritans. Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, having besieged and taken Samaria, carried away all the people captives into the remotest parts of his dominions, and filled their place with Babylonians, Cutheans, and other idolaters. These, finding that they were exposed to wild beasts, desired that an Israelitish priest might be sent among them, to instruct them in the ancient religion and customs of the land they inhabited. This being granted them, they were delivered from the plague of wild beasts, and embraced the law 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 of Jerusalem; and when they could not prevail, they erected a temple on Mount Gerizim, in opposition to that of Jerusalem. (See 2 Kings, xvii. Ezra, iv. v. vi.) The Samaritans at present are few in number, but pretend to great strictness in their observation of the law of Moses. They are said to be scattered; some at Damascus, some at Gaza, and some at Grand Cairo, in Egypt.
[ Top of Page ]
The collection of the five books of Moses, written in Samaritan or Phoenician characters; and, according to some, the ancient Hebrew characters which were in use before the captivity of Babylon. This Pentateuch was unknown in Europe till the seventeenth century, though quoted by Eusebius, Jerome, &c. Archbishop Usher was the first, or at least among the first, who procured it out of the East, to the number of five or six copies. Pietro della Valle purchased a very neat copy at Damascus, in 1616, for M. de Sansi, then ambassador of France at Constantinople, and afterwards bishop of St. Malo. This book was presented to the Fathers of the Oratory of St. Honore, where perhaps it is still preserved; and from which father Morinus, in 1632, printed the first Samaritan Pentateuch, which stands in Le Jay's Polyglot, but more correctly in Walton's from three Samaritan manuscripts, which belonged to Usher. the generality of divines hold, that the Samaritan Pentateuch, and that of the Jews, are one and the same work, written in the same language, only in different characters; and that the difference between the two text is owing to the inadvertency and inaccuracy of transcribers, or to the affectation of the Samaritans, by interpolating what might promote their interests and pretensions; that the two copies were originally the very same, and that the additions were afterwards inserted. And in this respect the Pentateuch of the Jews must be allowed the preference to that of the Samaritans; whereas others prefer the Samaritan as an original, preserved in the same character and the same condition in which Moses left it. The variations, additions, and transpositions which are found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, are carefully collected by Hottinger, and may be seen on confronting the two texts in the last volume of the English Polyglot, or by inspecting Kinnicott's edition of the Hebrew Bible, where the various readings are inserted. Some of these interpolations serve to illustrate the text; others are a kind of paraphrase, expressing at length what was only hinted at in the original; and others, again, such as favour their pretensions against the Jews; namely, the putting Gerizim for Ebal. Besides the Pentateuch in Phoenician characters, there is another in the language which was spoken at the time that Manasseh, first high priest of the temple of Gerizim, and son-in-law of Sanballat, governor of Samaria, under the king of Persia, took shelter among the Samaritans. The language of this last is a mixture of chaldee, Syriac, and Phoenician. It is called the Samaritan version, executed in favour of those who did not understand pure Hebrew; and is a literal translation, expressing the text word for word.
[ Top of Page ]
That work of God's grace, by which we are renewed after the image of God, set apart for his service, and enabled to die unto sin and live unto righteousness. It must be carefully considered in a two-fold light. 1. As an inestimable privilege granted us from God, 1 Thess. v. 23.--And, 2. As an all-comprehensive duty required of us by his holy word, 1 Thess. iv. 3. It is distinguished from justification thus: Justification changeth our state in law before God as a Judge; sanctification changeth our heart and life before him as our Father. Justification precedes, and sanctification follows, as the fruit and evidence of it. the surety-righteousness of christ imputed is our justifying righteousness; but the grace of God implanted is the matter of our sanctification. Justification removes the guilt of sin; sanctification the power of it. Justification delivers us from the avenging wrath of God, sanctification conforms us to his image. Yet justification and sanctification are inseparably connected in the promise of God, Rom. viii. 28 to 30; in the covenant of grace, Heb. viii. 10; in the doctrines and promises of the Gospel, Acts, v. 31; and in the experience of all true believers, 1 Cor. vi. 11. Sanctification is, 1. A divine work, and not to be begun or carried on by the power of man, Tit. iii. 5.--2. A progressive work, and not perfected at once, Prov. iv. 18.--3. An internal work, not consisting in external profession or bare morality, Psalms, li. 6.--4. A necessary work, necessary as to the evidence of our state, the honour of our characters, the usefulness of our lives, the happiness of our minds, and the internal enjoyment of God's presence in a future world, John, iii. 3. Heb. xii. 14. Sanctification evidences itself by, 1. A holy reverence, Nehem. v. 15.--2. Earnest regard, Lam. iii. 24.--3. Patient submission, Psal. xxxix. 9. Hence Archbishop Usher said of it, "Sanctification is nothing less than for a man to be brought to an entire resignation of his will to the will of God, and to live in the offering up of his soul continually in the flames of love, and as a whole burnt-offering to christ."--4. Increasing hatred to sin, Psal. cxix. 133.--5. Communion with God, Isaiah, xxvi. 8.--6. Delight in his word and ordinances, Psal. xxvii. 4.--7. Humility, Job, xlii. 5, 6.--8. Prayer, Psal. cix. 4.--9. Holy confidence, Psal. xxvii. 1.--10. Praise, Psal. ciii. 1.--11. Uniform obedience, John, xv. 8. See Marshall on Sanctification; Dr. Owen on the Holy Spirit; Witsii OEconomia, lib. iii. c. 12; Brown's Nat. and Rev. Theology, p. 447; Haweis's sermons, ser. 11, 12, 13; Scougal's Works. See articles HOLINESS, WORKS.
[ Top of Page ]
DIVINE,are those acts or laws of the Supreme Being which render any thing obligatory. See LAW.
[ Top of Page ]
A sect that originated in Scotland about the
year 1728; where it is, at this time, distinguished by the name of Glassites,
after its founder, Mr. John Glass, who was a minister of the established church
in that kingdom; but being charged with a design of subverting the national
covenant, and sapping the foundation of all national establishments, by
maintaining that the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, was expelled from
the synod by the church of Scotland. His sentiments are fully explained in a
tract, published at that time, entitled, "The Testimony of the King of
Martyrs," and preserved in the first volume of his works. In consequence
of Mr. Glass's expulsion, his adherents formed themselves into churches, conformable,
in their institution and discipline, to what they apprehended to be the plan of
the first churches recorded in the New Testament. Soon after the year 1755, Mr.
Robert Sandeman, an elder in one of these churches in Scotland, published a
series of letters addressed to Mr. Hervey, occasioned by his Theron and
Aspasio, in which he endeavours to show that his notion of faith is
contradictory to the Scripture account of it, and could only serve to lead men,
professedly holding the doctrines called Calvinistic, to establish their own
righteousness upon their frames, feelings, and acts of faith. In these letters
Mr. Sandeman attempts to prove that justifying faith is no more than a simple
belief of the truth, or the divine testimony passively received by the
understanding; and that this divine testimony carries in itself sufficient
ground of hope to every one who believes it, without any thing wrought in us,
or done by us, to give it a particular direction to ourselves.
Some of the popular preachers, as they were
called, had taught that it was of the essence of faith to believe that Christ
is ours; but Mr. Sandeman contended, that that which is believed in true faith
is the truth, and what would have been the truth though we had never believed
it. They dealt largely in calls and invitations to repent and believe in
Christ, in order to forgiveness; but he rejects the whole of them, maintaining
that the Gospel contained no offer but that of evidence, and that it was merely
a record or testimony to be credited. They had taught that though acceptance
with God, which included the forgiveness of sins, was merely on account of the
imputed righteousness of Christ, yet that none was accepted of God, nor
forgiven, till he repented of his sin, and received Christ as the only Saviour;
but he insists that there is acceptance with God through Christ for sinners,
while such, or before "any act, exercise, or exertion of their minds
whatsoever:" consequently before repentance; and that "a passive
belief of this quiets the guilty conscience, begets hope, and so lays the
foundation for love." It is by this passive belief of the truth that we,
according to Mr. Sandeman are justified, and that boasting is excluded. If any
act, exercise, or exertion of the mind, were necessary to our being accepted of
God, he conceives there would be whereof to glory; and justification by faith
could not be opposed, as it is in Rom. iv. 4, 6, to justification by works.
The authors to whom Mr. Sandeman refers, under
the title of "popular preachers," are Flavel, Boston, Guthrie, the
Erskines, &c. whom he has treated with acrimony and contempt. "I would
be far," says he, "from refusing even to the popular preachers
themselves what they so much grudge to others.--the benefit of the one instance
of a hardened sinner finding mercy at last; for I know of no sinners more
hardened, none greater destroyers of mankind, than they." There have not
been wanting writers, however, who have vindicated these ministers from his
invectives, and have endeavoured to show that Mr. Sandeman's notion of faith,
by excluding all exercise or concurrence of the will with the Gospel way of
salvation, confounds the faith of devils with that of Christians, and so is
calculated to deceive the souls of men. It has also been observed, that though
Mr. Sandeman admits of the acts of faith and love as fruits of believing the
truth, yet, "all his godliness consisting (as he acknowledges to Mr. Pike)
in love to that which first relieved him," it amounts to nothing but
self-love. And as self-love is a stranger to all those strong affections
expressed in the cxixth Psalm towards the law of God, he cannot admit of them
as the language of a good man, but applies the whole psalm to Christ, though
the person speaking acknowledges, that "before he was afflicted, he went
astray." Others have thought, that from the same principle it were easy to
account for the bitterness, pride, and contempt, which distinguish the system;
for self-love, say they, is consistent with the greatest aversion to all beings,
divine or human, excepting so far as they become subservient to us.
The chief opinion and practices in which this
sect differs from other Christians, are, their weekly administration of the
Lord's supper; their love-feasts, of which every member is not only allowed but
required to partake, and which consist of their dining together at each other's
houses in the interval between the morning and afternoon service. Their kiss of
charity used on this occasion at the admission of a new member, and at other
times when they deem it necessary and proper; their weekly collection before
the Lord's supper, for the support of the poor, and defraying other expenses;
mutual exhortation; abstinence from blood and things strangled; washing each
other's feet, when, as a deed of mercy, it might be an expression of love, the
precept concerning which, as well as other precepts, they understand literally:
community of goods, so far as that every one is to consider all that he has in
his possession and power, liable to the calls of the poor and the church; and
the unlawfulness of laying up treasures upon earth, by setting them apart for
any distant, future, and uncertain use. They allow of public and private
diversions, so far as they are unconnected with circumstances really sinful;
but apprehending a lot to be sacred, disapprove of lotteries, playing at cards,
dice, &c.
They maintain a plurality of elders, pastors, or
bishops, in each church; and the necessity of the presence of two elders in
every act of discipline, and at the administration of the Lord's supper.
In the choice of these elders, want of learning
and engagement in trade are no sufficient objection, if qualified according to
the instructions given to Timothy and Titus; but second marriages disqualify
for the office; and they are ordained by prayer and fasting, imposition of
hands, and giving the right hand of fellowship.
In their discipline they are strict and severe,
and think themselves obliged to separate from the communion and worship of all
such religious societies as appear to them not to profess the simple truth for
their only ground of hope, and who do not walk in obedience to it. We shall
only add, that in every transaction they esteem unanimity to be absolutely
necessary. See Glass's Testimony of the King of Martyrs; Sandeman's Letters on
Theron ant. Aspasio, letter 11; Backus's Discourses on Faith and its Influence,
p. 7-30; Adam's View of Religions; Bellamy's Nature and Glory of the Gospel,
Lon. ed. notes, p. 65-125; History of Dis. Church, p. 265, v. i.; Fuller's
Letters on Sandemanianism.
[ Top of Page ]
A council or assembly of persons sitting together; the name whereby the Jews called the great council of the nation, assembled in an apartment of the temple of Jerusalem, to determine the most important affairs both of church and state.
[ Top of Page ]
Wandering fanatics, or rather impostors, of the fourth century, who, instead of procuring a subsistence by honest industry, travelled through various cities and provinces, and gained a maintenance by fictitious miracles, by selling relics to the multitude, and other frauds of a like nature.
[ Top of Page ]
Is a Hebrew word, and signifies an adversary, or enemy, and is commonly applied in Scripture to the devil, or the chief of the fallen angels. "By collecting the passages," says Cruden, "where Satan, or the devil, is mentioned, it may be observed, that he fell from heaven with all his company; that God cast him down from thence for the punishment of his pride; that, by his envy and malice, sin, death, and all other evils, came into the world; that, by the permission of God, he exercises a sort of government in the world over his subordinates, over apostate angels like himself; that God makes use of him to prove good men and chastise bad ones; that he is a lying spirit in the mouth of false prophets, seducers, and heretics; that it is he, or some of his, that torment or possess men; that inspire them with evil designs, as he did David, when he suggested to him to number his people; to Judas, to betray his Lord and Master; and to Ananias and Sapphira, to conceal the price of their field. That he roves full of rage like a roaring lion, to tempt, to betray, to destroy, and to involve us in guilt and wickedness; that his power and malice are restrained within certain limits, and controlled by the will of God. In a word, that he is an enemy to God and man, and uses his utmost endeavours to rob God of his glory, and men of their souls." See articles ANGEL, DEVIL, TEMPTATION. More particularly as to the temptations of Satan. 1. "He adapts them to our temper and circumstances.--2. He chooses the fittest season to tempt: as youth, age, poverty, prosperity, public devotion, after happy manifestations; or when in a bad frame; after some signal source; when alone, or in the presence of the object; when unemployed and off our guard; in death.--3. He puts on the mask of religious friendship, 2 Cor. xi. 14. Matt. iv. 6. Luke, ix. 50. Gen. iii.--4. He manages temptation with the greatest subtlety. He asks but little at first; leaves for a season in order to renew his attack.--5. He leads men to sin with a hope of speedy repentance.--6. He raises suitable instruments, bad habits, relations, Gen. iii. Job, ii. 9, 10. See Gilpin on Temptation; Brooks on Satan's Devices; Bishop Porteus's Sermons, vol. ii. p. 63; Burgh's Crito. vol. i. ess. 3; vol. ii. ess. 4; Howe's Works, vol. ii. p. 360; Gurnall's Christian Armour.
[ Top of Page ]
A branch of the Messalians, who appeared about the year 390. It is said, among other things that they believed the devil to be extremely powerful, and that it was much wiser to respect and adore than to curse him.
[ Top of Page ]
In general, significes the act of giving complete or perfect pleasure. In the Christian system it denotes that which Christ did and suffered in order to satisfy divine justice, to secure the honours of the divine government, and thereby make an atonement for the sins of his people. Satisfation is distinguished from merit thus: The satisfaction of Christ consists in his answering the demands of the law on man which were consequent on the breach of it. These were answered by suffering its penalty. The merit of Christ consists in what he did to fulfil what the law demanded, before man sinned, which was obedience. The satisfaction of Christ is to free us from misery, and the Merit of Christ is to purchase happiness for us. See ATONEMENT and PROPITIATION. Also Dr. Owen on the Satisfaction of Christ; Gill's Body of Div. article Satisfacction; Stillingfleet on Satisfaction; Watts's Redeemer and Sanctifier, p. 28, 32; Hervey's Theron and Aspasio.
[ Top of Page ]
A denomination which arose about the year 115.
They derived their name from Saturnius of Antioch, one of the principal Gnostic
chiefs. He held the doctrine of two principles, whence proceeded all things;
the one, a wise and benevolent Deity, and the other, matter, a principle
essentially evil, and which he supposed acted under the superintendence of a
certain intelligence of a malignant nature.
The world and its inhabitants were, according to
the system of Saturnius, created by seven angels, which presided over the seven
planets. This work was carried on without the knowledge of the benevolent
Deity, and in opposition to the will of the material principle. The former,
however, beheld it with approbation, and honoured it with several marks of his
beneficence. He endowed with rational souls the beings who inhabited this new
system, to whom their creators had imparted nothing more than the animal life;
and, having divided the world into seven parts, he distributed them among the
seven angelic architects, one of whom was the God of the Jews, and reserved to
himself the supreme empire over all. To these creatures, whom the benevolent
principle had endowed with reasonable souls, and with dispositions that led to
goodness and virtue, and evil being, to maintain his empire, added another
kind, whom he formed of a wicked and malignant character: and hence the
differences we see among men. When the creatures of the world fell from their
allegiance to the supreme Deity, God sent from heaven into our globe a restorer
of order, whose name was Christ. This divine Conqueror came clothed with a
corporeal appearance, but not with a real body. He came to destroy the empire
of the material principle, and to point out to virtuous souls the way by which
they must return to God. This way is beset with difficulties and sufferings,
since those souls who propose returning to the Supreme Being must abstain from
wine, flesh, wedlock, and in short from every thing that tends to sensual
gratification or even bodily refreshment. See GNOSTICS.
[ Top of Page ]
A person who delivers from danger and misery.
Thus Jesus Christ is called the Saviour, as he delivers us from the greatest
evils, and brings us into the possession of the greatest good. See JESUS
CHRIST, LIBERTY, PROPITIATION, REDEMPTION.
Order of St. Saviour, a religious order of the
Romish church, founded by St. Bridget, about the year 1345; and so called from
its being pretended that our Saviour himself declared its constitution and
rules to the foundress.
[ Top of Page ]
A conference held at the Savoy, 1661, between the episcopal divines and the Presbyterians, in order to review the book of Common Prayer; but which was carried on the side of the Episcopalians. See Neale's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. ii. p. 601, quarto edit. or Introduction to Palmer's Nonconformists' Memorial.
[ Top of Page ]
Of FAITH, a declaration of the faith and order of the Independents, agreed upon by their elders and messengers in their meeting at the Savoy in the year 1658. This was re-printed in the year 1729. See Neale's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. ii. p. 507, quarto edit.
[ Top of Page ]
From "I consider, look about, or deliberate." properly signifies considerative and inquisitive; or one who is always weighing, reasons on one side or the other without ever deciding between them.--The word is applied to an ancient sect of philosophers founded by Pyrrho, who denied the real existence of all qualities in bodies, except those which are essential to primary atoms; and referred every thing else to the perceptions of the mind produced by external objects; in other words, to appearance and opinion. In modern times the word has been applied to Deists, or those who doubt of the truth and authenticity of the sacred Scriptures. One of the greatest sceptics in later times was Hume; he endeavoured to introduce metaphysics, history, ethics, and theology. He has been confuted, however, by the doctors, Reid, Campbell, Gregory, and Beattie. See INFIDELITY.
[ Top of Page ]
A denomination in the sixteenth century; so called from one Gasper Schewenkfeldt, a Silesian knight. He differed from Luther in the three following points. The first of these points related to the doctrine concerning the eucharist. Schewenkfeldt inverted the following words of Christ, This is my body: and insisted in their being thus understood. My body is this, i. e. such as this bread which is broken and consumed; a true and real food, which nourisheth, satisfieth, and delighteth the soul. My blood is this, that is, such its effects, as the wine which strengthens and refresheth the heart. Secondly, He denied that the eternal word which is committed to writing in the holy Scriptures was endowed with the power of healing, illuminating, and renewing the mind; and he ascribed this power to the internal word, which, according to his notion, was Christ himself. Thirdly, He would not allow Christ's human nature, in its exalted state, to be called a creature, or a created substance, as such a denomination appeared to him infinitely below its majestic dignity; united as it is in that glorious state with the divine essence.
[ Top of Page ]
From a rent, clift, fissure; in its general
acceptation it signifies division or separation; but is chiefly used in
speaking of separations happening from diversity of opinions among people of
the same religion and faith. All separations, however, must not, properly
speaking, be considered as schisms.
Schism, says Mr. Arch. Hall, is, properly, a
division among those who stand in one connection of fellowship: but where the
difference is carried so far, that the parties concerned entirely break up all
communion one with another, and go into distinct connections for obtaining the
general ends of that religious fellowship which they once did, but now do not
carry on and pursue with united endeavours, as one church joined in the bonds
of individual society; where this is the case, it is undeniable there is
something very different from schism: it is no longer a schism in, but a
separation from, the body. Dr. Campbell supposes that the word schism in
Scripture does not always signify open separation, but that men may be guilty
of schism by such an alienation of affection from their brethren as violates
the internal union subsisting in the hearts of Christians, though there be no
error in doctrine, nor separation from communion. See 1 Cor. iii. 3, 4. 1 Cor.
xii. 24-26.
The great schism of the West is that which
happened in the times of Clement VII. and Urban VI. which divided the church
for forty or fifty years, and was at length ended by the election of Martin V.
at the council of Constance.
The Romanists number thirty-four schisms in their
church: they bestow the name English schism on the reformation of religion in
this kingdom. Those of the church of England apply the term schism to the
separation of the Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, and Methodists.
"The sin of schism," says the learned
Blackstone, "as such, is by no means the object of temporal coercion and
punishment.--If, through weakness of intellect, through misdirected piety,
through perverseness and acerbity of temper, or through a prospect of secular
advantage in herding with a party, men quarrel with the ecclesiatical
establishment, the civil magistrate has nothing to do with it; unless their
tenets and practice are such as threaten ruin or disturbance to the state. All
persecution for diversity of opinions, however ridiculous and absurd they may
be, is contrary to every principle of sound policy and civil freedom. The names
and subordination of the clergy; the posture of devotion, the materials and
colour of a minister's garment, the joining in a known or unknown form of
prayer, and other matters of the same kind, must be left to the option of every
man's private judgment." The following have been proposed as remedies for
schism. "1. Be disposed to support your brethren by all the friendly
attentions in your power, speaking justly of their preaching and character.
Never withhold these proofs of your brotherly love, unless they depart from the
doctrines or spirit of the Gospel.--2. Discountenance the silly reports you may
hear, to the injury of any of your brethren. Oppose backbiting and slander to
the utmost.--3. whenever any brother is sinking in the esteem of his flock
through their caprice, perverseness, or antinomianism, endeavour to hold up his
hands and his heart in his work.--4. Never espouse the part of the factious
schismatics, till you have heard your brother's account of their conduct.--5.
In cases of an open separation, do not preach for separatists till it be
evident that God is with them. Detest the thought of wounding a brother's
feelings through the contemptible influence of a party spirit; for through this
abominable principle, schisms are sure to be multiplied.--6. Let the symptoms
of disease in the patients, arouse the benevolent attention of the physicians.
Let them check the froward, humble the proud, and warn the unruly; and many a
schismatic distemper will receive timely cure.--7. Let elderly ministers and
tutors of academics pay more attention to these things, in proportion as the
disease may prevail; for much good may be accomplished by their
influence." See King on the Primitive Church, p. 152.; Hales and Henry on
Schism; Dr. Campbell's Prel. Disc. to the Gospels, part 3; Haweis's Appendix to
the first vol. of his Chruch History; Archibald Hall's View of a Gospel Church;
Dr. Owen's View of the Nature of Schism; Buck's Sermons, ser. 6. on Divisions.
[ Top of Page ]
See conclusion of the article NONCONFORMIST.
[ Top of Page ]
Is that part or species of divinity which clears and discusses questions by reason and argument; in which sense it stands, in some measure, opposed to positive divinity, which is founded on the authority of fathers, councils, &c. The school divinity is not fallen into contempt, and is scarcely regarded any where but in some of the universities, where they are still by their charters obliged to teach it.
[ Top of Page ]
A sect of men, in the twelfth, thirteenth, and
fourteenth centuries, who framed a new sort of divinity, called Scholastic
Theology. (See last article.) Their divinity was founded upon, and confirmed
by, the philosophy of Aristotle, and lay, says Dr. Gill, in contentions and
litigious disputations, in thorny questions and subtle distinctions. Their
whole scheme was chiefly directed to support Antichristianism; so that by their
means Popish darkness was the more increased, and Christian divinity almost
banished out of the world.
"Considerint them as to their metaphysical
researches," says an anonymous but excellent writer, "they fatigued
their readers in the pursuit of endless abstractions and distinctions; and
their design seems rather to have been accurately to arrange and define the
objects of thought than to explore the mental faculties themselves. The nature
of particular and universal ideas, time, space, infinity, together with the
mode of existence to be ascribed to the Supreme Being, chiefly engaged the
attention of the mightiest minds in the middle ages. Acute in the highest
degree, and endued with a wonderful patience of thinking they yet, by a
mistaken direction of their powers, wasted themselves in endless logomachies,
and displayed more of a teazing subtlety than of philosophical depth. They
chose rather to strike into the dark and intricate by-paths of metaphysical
science, than to pursue a career of useful discovery; and as their
disquisitions were neither adorned by taste, nor reared on a basis of extensive
knowledge, they gradually fell into neglect, when juster views in philosophy
made their appearance. Still they will remain a mighty monument of the utmost
which the mind of man can accomplish in the field of abstraction. If the
metaphysician does not find in the schoolmen the materials of his work, he will
preceive the study of their writings to be of excellent benefit in sharpening
his tools. they will aid his acuteness, though they may fail to enlarge his
knowledge."
Some of the most famous were, Damascene,
Lanfranc, P. Lombard, Alex. Hales, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus,
and Durandus. Gill's Body of Divinity, Preface; Elective Rev. for Dec. 1805; H.
More's Hints to a Young Princess, vol. ii. p. 267, 268.
[ Top of Page ]
One who treats any person or thing with contempt. "He deems," says Mr. Scott, "his own understanding equal to the discovery, investigation, and even comprehension, of every subject: he therefore rejects as false whatever he cannot account for, what he finds contrary to his preconceived sentiments, and what is out of the reach of his reason; and, indeed, all that tends to condemn his conduct, or expose his folly."
[ Top of Page ]
A sect of school divines and philosophers; thus called from their founder, J. Duns Scotus, a Scottish cordelier, who maintained the immaculate conception of the Virgin, or that she was born without original sin, in opposition to Thomas Aquinas and the Thomists.
[ Top of Page ]
This word has different significations in Scripture. 1. A clerk, or writer, or secretary, 2 Sam. viii. 17.--2. A commissary, or muster-master of the army, 2 Chron. xxvi. 11, 2 Kings, xxv. 19.--3. A man of learning, a doctor of the law, 1 Chron. xxvii. 32.
[ Top of Page ]
Is a word derived from the Latin scriptura, and
in its original sense is of the same import with writing, signifying "any
thing written." It is, however, commonly used to denote the writings of
the Old and New Testaments, which are called sometimes the Scriptures,
sometimes the sacred or holy Scriptures, and sometimes canonical Scriptures.
These books are called the Scriptures by way of eminence, as they are the most
important of all writings.--They are said to be holy or sacred on account of
the sacred doctrines which they teach; and they are termed canonical, because,
when their number and authenticity were ascertained, their names were inserted
in ecclesiastical canons, to distinguish them from other books, which, being of
no authority, were kept out of sight, and therefore styled apocryphal. See
APOCRYPHA.
Among other arguments for the divine authority of
the Scriptures, the following may be considered as worthy of our attention:
"1. The sacred penmen, the prophets and
apostles, were holy, excellent men, and would not--artless, illiterate men, and
therefore could not, lay the horrible scheme of deluding mankind. The hope of
gain did not influence them, for they were self-denying men, that left all to
follow a Master who had not where to lay his head; and whose grand initiating
maxim was, Except a man forsake all that he hath, he cannot be my
disciple.--They were so disinterested, that they secured nothing on earth but
hunger and nakedness, stocks and prisons, racks and tortures; which, indeed,
was all that they could or did expect, in consequence of Christ's express
declarations. Neither was a desire of honour the motive of their actions; for
their Lord himself was treated with the utmost contempt, and had more than once
assured them that they should certainly share the same fate: above working as
mechanics for a coarse maintenance; and so little desirous of human regard,
that they exposed to the world the meanness of their birth and occupations,
their great ignorance and scandalous falls. Add to this that they were so many,
and lived at such distance of time and place from each other, that, had they
been impostors, it would have been impracticable for them to contrive and carry
on a forgery without being detected. And, as they neither would nor could
deceive the world, so they either could nor would be deceived themselves; for
they were days, months, and years, eye and ear-witnesses of the things which
they relate; and, when they had not the fullest evidence of important facts,
they insisted upon new proofs, and even upon sensible demonstrations; as, for
instance, Thomas, in the matter of our Lord's resurrection, John xx. 25; and to
leave us no room to question their sincerity, most of them joyfully sealed the
truth of their doctrines with their own blood. Did so many and such marks of
veracity ever meet in any other authors?
"2. But even while they lived, they
confirmed their testimony by a variety of miracles wrought in divers places,
and for a number of years, sometimes before thousands of their enemies, as the
miracles of Christ and his disciples; sometimes before hundreds of thousands,
as those of Moses. (See MIRACLE.)
"3. Reason itself dictates, that nothing but
the plainest matter of fact could induce so many thousands of prejudiced and
persecuting Jews to embrace the humbling self-denying doctrine of the cross,
which they so much despised and abhorred. Nothing but the clearest evidence
arising from undoubted truth could make multitudes of lawless, luxurious
heathens receive, follow, and transmit to posterity, the doctrine and writings
of the apostles; expecially at a time when the vanity of their pretensions to
miracles and the gift of tongues, could be so easily discovered, had they been
impostors; and when the profession of Christianity exposed persons of all ranks
to the greatest contempt and most imminent danger.
"4. When the authenticity of the miracles
was attested by thousands of living witnesses, religious rites were instituted
and performed by hundreds of thousands, agreeable to Scripture injunctions, in
order to perpetuate that authenticity: and these solemn ceremonies have ever
since been kept up in all parts of the world; the Passover by the Jews, in
remembrance of Moses's miracles in Egypt; and the Eucharist by Christians, as a
memorial of Christ's death, and the miracles that accompanied it, some of which
are recorded by Phlegon the Trallian, an heathen historian.
"5. The Scriptures have not only the
external sanction of miracles, but the eternal stamp of the omniscient God by a
variety of prophecies, some of which have already been most exactly confirmed
by the event predicted. (See PROPHECY.)
"6. The scattered, despised people, the
Jews, the irreconcileable enemies of the Christians, keep with amazing care the
Old Testament, full of the prophetic history of Jesus Christ, and by that means
afford the world a striking proof that the New Testament is true; and
Christians, in their turn, show that the Old Testament is abundantly confirmed
and explained by the New. (See JEWS, &4)
"7. To say nothing of the harmony, venerable
antiquity, and wonderful preservation of those books, some of which are by far
the most ancient in the world; to pass over the inimitable simplicity and true
sublimity of their style; the testimony of the fathers and the primitive
Christians; they carry with them such characters of truth, as command the
respect of every unprejudiced reader.
"They open to us the mystery of the
creation; the nature of God, angels, and man; the immortality of the soul; the
end for which we were made; the origin and connexion of moral and natural evil;
the vanity of this world, and the glory of the next. There we see inspired
shepherds, tradesmen, and fishermen, surpassing as much the greatest
philosophers, as these did the herd of mankind, both in meekness of wisdom and
sublimity of doctrine.--There we admire the purest morality in the world,
agreeable to the dictates of sound reason, confirmed by the witness which God
has placed for himself in our breast, and exemplified in the lives of men of
like passions with ourselves.--There we discover a vein of ecclesiastical
history and theological truth consistently running through a collection of
sixty-six different books, wtitten by various authors, in different languages,
during the space of above 1500 years.--There we find, as in a deep and pure
spring, all the genuine drops and streams of spiritual knowledge which can
possibly be met within the largest libraries.--There the workings of the human
heart are described in a manner that demonstrate the inspiration of the
Searcher of hearts.--There we have a particular account of all our spiritual
maladies, with their various symptoms, and the method of a certain cure; a cure
that has been witnessed by multitudes of martyrs and departed saints, and is
now enjoyed by thousands of good men, who would account it an honour to seal
the truth of the Scriptures with their own blood.--There you meet with the
noblest strains of penitential and joyous devotion,adapted to the dispositions
and states of all travellers to Sion.--And there you read those awful
threatenings and cheering promises which are daily fulfilled in the consciences
of men, to the admiration of believers, and the astonishment of attentive
infidels.
"8. The wonderful efficacy of the Scriptures
is another proof that they are of God. When they are faithfully opened by his
ministers, and powerfully applied by his Spirit, they wound and heal, they kill
and make alive; they alarm the careless, direct the lost, support the tempted,
strengthen the weak, comfort mourners, and nourish pious souls.
"9. To conclude: It is exceedingly
remarkable, that the more humble and holy people are, the more they read,
admire, and value the Scriptures: and, on the contrary, the more
self-conceited, worldly-minded, and wicked, the more they neglect, despise, and
asperse them.
"As for the objections which are raised
against their perspicuity and consistency, those who are both pious and learned,
know that they are generally founded on prepossession, and the want of
understanding in spiritual things; or on our ignorance of several customs,
idioms, and circumstances, which were perfectly known when those books were
written. Frequently, also, the immaterial error arises merely from a wrong
punctuation, or a mistake of copiers, printers, or translators; as the daily
discoveries of pious critics, of ingenious confessions of unprejudiced
enquirers, abundantly prove."
To understand the Scriptures, says Dr. Campbell,
we should, 1. Get acquainted with each writer's style.--2. Inquire carefully
into the character, the situation, and the office of the writer; the time, the
place, the occasion of his writing; and the people for whose immediate use he originally
intended his work.--3. Consider the principal scope of the book, and the
particulars chiefly observable in the method by which the writer has purposed
to execute his design.--4. Where the phrase is obscure, the context must be
consulted. This, however, will not always answer.--5. If it do not, consider
whether the phrase be any of the writer's peculiarities: if so, it must be
inquired what is the acceptation in which he employs it in other places.--6. If
this be not sufficient, recourse should be had to the parallel passages, if
there be any such, in the other sacred writers.--7. If this throws no light,
consult the New Testament and the Septuagint, where the word may be used.--8.
If the term be only once used in Scripture, then recur to the ordinary
acceptation of the term in classical authors.--9. Sometimes reference may be
had to the fathers.--10. The ancient versions, as well as modern scholiasts,
annotators, and translators, may be consulted.--11. The analogy of faith, and
the etymology of the word, must be used with caution.
Above all, let the reader unite prayer with his
endeavours, that his understanding may be illuminated, and his heart impressed
with the great truths which the sacred Scriptures contain.
As to the public reading of the Scriptures, it
may be remarked, that this is a very laudable and necessary practice. "One
circumstance," as a writer observes, "why this should be attended to
in congregations is, that numbers of the hearers, in many places, cannot read
them themselves, and not a few of them never hear them read in the families
where they reside. It is strange that this has not long ago struck every person
of the least reflection in all our churches, and especially the ministers, as a
most conclusive and irresistible argument for the adoption of this practice.
"It surely would be better to abridge the
preaching and singing, and even the prayers, to one half of their length or
more, than to neglect the public reading of the Scriptures. Let these things,
therefore, be daly considered, together with the following reasons and
observations, and let the reader judge and determine the case, or the matter,
for himself.
"Remember that God no sooner caused any part
of his will, or word, to be written, than he also commanded the same to be
read, not only in the family, but also in the congregation, and that even when
all Israel were assembled together (the men, women, and children, and even the
strangers that were within their gates;) and the end was, that they might hear,
and that they might learn, and fear the Lord their God, and observe to do all
the words of his law, Deut. xxxi. 12.
"Afterward, when synagogues were erected in
the land of Israel, that the people might every Sabbath meet to worship God, it
is well known that the public reading of the Scripture was a main part of the
service there performed: so much so, that no less than three-fourths of the
time ws generally employed, it seems, in reading and expounding the Scriptures.
Even the prayers and songs used on those occasions appear to have been all
subservient to that particular and principal employment or service, the reading
of the law.
"This work, or practice, of reading the
Scripture in the congregation, is warranted, and recommended in the New Testament,
as well as in the Old. As Christians, it is fit and necessary that we should
first of all look unto Jesus, who is the author and finisher of our faith. His
example, as well as his precepts, is full of precious and most important
instruction; and it is a remarkable circumstance, which ought never to be
forgotten, that he began his public ministry, in the synagogue of Nazareth, by
reading a portion of Scripture out of the book of the prophet Isaiah; Luke, iv.
15.--19. This alone, one would think, might be deemed quite sufficient to
justify the practice among his disciples through all succeeding ages, and even
inspire them with zeal for its constant observance.
"The apostle Paul, in pointing out to
Timothy his ministerial duties, particularly mentions reading, 1 Tim. iv. 13.
Give attendance (says he) to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine, evidently
distinguishing reading as one of the public duties incumbent upon Timothy.
there can be no reason for separating these three, as if the former was only a
private duty, and the others public ones; the most natural and consistent idea
is, that they were all three public duties; and that the reading here spoken
of, was no other than the reading of the Scriptures in those Christian
assemblies where Timothy was concerned, and which the apostle would have him by
no means to neglect. If the public reading of the Scriptures was so necessary
and important in those religious assemblies which had Timothy for their
minister, how much more must it be in our assemblies, and even in those which
enjoy the labours of our most able and eminent ministers!"
On the subject of the Scriptures, we must refer
the reader to the articles BIBLE, CANON, INSPIRATION, PROPHECY, and REVELATION.
See also Brown's Introduction to his Bible; Dr. Campbell's Preliminary
Dissertations to his Transl. of the Gospels; Fletcher's Appeal; Simon's
Critical History of the Old and New Test.; Ostervald's Arguments of the Books
and Characters of the Old and New Test.; Cosins's Scholastic Hist. of the Canon
of Scrip.; Warden's System of Revealed Religion; Wells's Geography of the Old
and New Test.; The Use of Sacred History, especially as illustrating and
confirming the Doctrine of Revelation, by Dr. Jamieson; Dick on Inspiration;
Blackwell's Sacred Classics; Michael's Introduction to the New Test.; Melmoth's
Sublime and Beautiful of the Scriptures; Dwight's Dissertation on the Poetry,
History, and Eloquence of the Bible; Edwards on the Authority, Style, and
Perfection of Scripture; Stackhouse's History of the Bible; Kennicott's State
of the Hebrew Text.; Jones on the figurative Language of Scripture; and books
under articles BIBLE, COMMENTARY, CHRISTIANITY, and REVELATION.
[ Top of Page ]
A numerous body of Presbyterians in Scotland,
who have withdrawn from the communion of the established church.
In 1732, more than forty ministers presented an
address to the general assembly, specifying, in a variety of instances, what
they considered to be great defections from the established constitution of the
church, and craving a redress of these grievances. A petition to the same
effect, subscribed by several hundreds of elders and private Christians, was
offered at the same time; but the assembly refused a hearing to both, and
enacted, that the election of ministers to vacant charges, where an accepted
presentation did not take place, should be competent only to a conjunct meeting
of elders and heritors, being Protestants. To this act many objections were
made by numbers of ministers and private Christians. They asserted that more
than thirty to one in every parish were not possessed of landed property, and
were, on that account, deprived of what they deemed their natural right to
choose their own pastors. It was also said that this act was extremely
prejudicial to the honour and interest of the church, as well as to the
edification of the people; and, in fine, that it was directly contrary to the
appointment of Jesus Christ, and the practice of the apostles, when they filled
up the first vacancy in the apostolic college, and appointed the election of
deacons and elders in the primitive church. Many of those also who were thought
to be the best friends of the church expressed their fears, that this act would
have a tendency to overturn the ecclesiastical constitution which was
established at the revolution.
Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, minister at Stirling,
distinguished himself by a bold and determined opposition to the measures of
the assembly in 1732. Being at that time moderator of the synod of Perth and
Stirling, he opened the meeting at Perth with a sermon from Psalm cxviii. 22.
"The stone which the builders rejected, is become the head stone of the
corner." In the course of his sermon, he remonstrated with no small degree
of freedom against the act of the preceding assembly, with regard to the
settlement of ministers; and alleged that it was contrary to the word of God
and the established constitution of the church. A formal complaint was lodged against
him for uttering several offensive expressions in his sermon before the synod.
Many of the members declared that they heard him utter nothing but sound and
seasonable doctrine; but his accusers, insisting on their complaint, obtained
an appointment of committee of synod to collect what were called the offensive
expressions, and to lay them before the next diet in writing. This was done
accordingly; and Mr. Erskine gave in his answers to every article of the
complaint. After three day's warm reasoning on this affair, the synod, by a
majority of six, found him censurable; against which sentence he protested, and
appealed to the next general assembly. When the assembly met in May 1733, it
confirmed the sentence of the synod, and appointed Mr. Erskine to be rebuked
and admonished from the chair. Upon which he protested, that as the assembly
had found him censurable, and had rebuked him fro doing what he conceived to be
agreeable to the word of God and the standards of the church, he should be at
liberty to preach the same truths, and to testify against the same or similar
evils, on every proper occasion. To this protest Messrs. William Wilson,
minister at Perth, Alexander Moncrief, minister at Abernethy, and James Fisher,
minister at Kinclaven, gave in a written adherence, under the form of
instrument; and these four withdrew, intending to return to their respective
charges, and act agreeably to their protest whenever they should have an
opportunity. Had the affair rested here, there never would have been a
secession; but the assembly, resolving to carry the process, cited them by
their officer, to compear next day. They obeyed the citation; and a committee
was appointed to retire with them, in order to persuade them to withdraw their
protest. The committee having reported that they still adhered to their
protest, the assembly ordered them to appear before the commission in August
following, and retract their protest; and, if they should not comply and
testify their sorrow for their conduct, the commission was empowered to suspend
them from the exercise of their ministry, with certification that, if they
should act contrary to the said sentence, the commission should proceed to an
higher censure.
The commission met in August accordingly; and the
four ministers, still adhering to their protest, were suspended from the
exercise of their office, and cited to the next meeting of the commission in
November following. From this sentence several ministers and elders, members of
the commission, dissented. The commission met in November, and the suspended
ministers compeared. Addresses, representations, and letters from several
synods and presbyteries, relative to the business now before the commission,
were received and read. The synod of Dumfries, Murray, Ross, Angus and Mearns,
Perth and Stirling, craved that the commission would delay proceeding to a
higher censure. The synods of Galloway and Fife, as also the presbytery of
Dornoch, addressed the commission for lenity, tenderness, and forbearance
towards the suspended ministers; and the presbytery of Aberdeen represented,
that, in their judgment, the sentence of suspension inflicted on the aforesaid
ministers was too high, and that it was a stretch of ecclesiastical authority.
Many members of the commission reasoned in the same manner, and alleged, that
the act and sentence of last assembly did not obliged them to proceed to a
higher censure at this meeting of the commission. The question, however, was
put,--Proceed to a higher censure or not? and the votes being numbered, were
found equal on both sides: upon which Mr. John Goldie, the moderator, gave his
casting vote to proceed to a higher censure; which stands in their minutes in
these words:--"The commission did and hereby do loose the relation of Mr.
Ebenezer Erskine, minister at Stirling, Mr. William Wilson, minister at Perth,
Mr. Alexander Moncrief, minister at Abernethy, and Mr. James Fisher, minister
at Kinclaven, to their respective charge, and declare them no longer ministers
of this church; and do hereby prohibit all ministers of this church to employ
them, or any of them, in any ministerial function. And the commission do
declare the churches of the said ministers vacant from and after the date of
this sentence."
This sentence being intimated to them, they
protested that their ministerial office and relation to their respective
charges should be held as valid as if no such sentence had passed; and that
they were now obliged to make a secession from the prevailing party in the
ecclesiastical courts; and that it shall be lawful and warrantable for them to
preach the Gospel, and discharge every branch of the pastoral office, according
to the word of God, and the established principles of the church of Scotland.
Mr. Ralph Erskine, minister at Dunfermline, Mr. Thomas Mair, minister at Orwel,
Mr. John M'Laren, minister at Edinburgh, Mr. John Currie, minister at
Kinglassie, Mr. James Wardlaw, minister at Dunfermline, and Mr. Thomas Narin,
minister at Abbotshall, protested against the sentence of the commission, and
that it should be lawful for them to complain of it to any subsequent general
assembly of the church.
The secession properly commenced at this date.
And accordingly the ejected ministers declared in their protest, that they were
laid under the disagreeable necessity of seceding, not from the principles and
constitution of the church of Scotland, to which, they said, they steadfastly
adhered, but from the present church-courts, which had thrown them out from
ministerial communion. The assembly, however, which met in May 1734, did so far
modify the above snetence, that they empowered the synod of Perth and Stirling
to receive the ejected ministers into the communion of the church, and restore
them to their respective charges; but with this express direction, "that
the said synod should not take upon them to judge of the legality or formality
of the former procedure of the church judicatories in relation to this affair,
or either approve or censure the same." As this appointment neither condemned
the act of the preceding assembly, nor the conduct of the commission, the
seceding ministers considered it to be rather an act of grace than of justice;
and therefore, they said, they could not return to the church-courts upon this
ground; and they published to the world the reasons of their refusal, and the
terms upon which they were willing to return to the communion of the
established church. They now erected themselves into an ecclesiastical court,
which they called the Associated Presbytery, and preached occasionally to
numbers of the people who joined them in different parts of the country. They
also published what they called an Act, Declaration, and Testimony, to the
doctrine, worship, government, and discipline of the church of Scotland; and
against several instances, as they said, of defection from these, both in
former and in the present times. Some time after this, several ministers of the
established church joined them, and the Associated Presbytery now consisted of
eight ministers. But the general assembly which met in 1738, finding that the
number of Seceders was much increased, ordered the eight ministers to be served
with a libel, and to be cited to the next meeting of the assembly, in 1739.
They now appeared at the bar as a constituted presbytery, and, having formerly
declined the assembly's authority, they immediately withdrew. The assembly
which met next year, deposed them from the office of the ministry; which,
however, they continued to exercise in their respective congregations, who
still adhered to them, and erected meeting-houses, where they preached till
their death. Mr. James Fisher, the last survivor of them, was by a unanimous
call in 1741, translated from Kinclaven to Glasgow, where he continued in the
exercise of his ministry among a numerous congregation, respected by al ranks
in that large city, and died in 1775, much regretted by his people and friends.
In 1745, the seceding ministers were become so numerous, that they were erected
into three different presbyteries under one synod, when a very unprofitable
dispute divided them into two parties.
The burgess oath, in some of the royal boroughs
of Scotland, contains the following clause: "I profess and allow with my
heart the true religion presently professed within this realm, and authorised
by the laws thereof. I will abide at and defend the same to my life's end,
renouncing the Romish religion called Papistry." Messrs. Ebenezer and
Ralph Erskine, James Fisher, and others, affirmed that this clause was no way
contrary to the principles upon which the secession was formed, and that
therefore every seceder might lawfully swear it. Messrs. Alexander Moncrief,
Thomas Mair, Adam Gib, and others, contended, on the other hand, that the
swearing of the above clause was a virtual renunciation of their testimony; and
this controversy was so keenly agitated, that they split into two different
parties, and now meet in different synods. Those of them who assert the
lawfulness of swearing the burgess oath are called Burghers; and the other
party, who condemn it, are called Antiburgher Seceders. Each party claiming to
itself the lawful constitution of the Associate Synod, the Antiburghers, after
several previous steps, excommunicated the Burghers, on the ground of their
sin, and of their contumacy in it. This rupture took place in 1747, since which
period no attempts to effect a reunion have been successful. They remain under
the jurisdiction of different synods, and hold separate communion, although
much of their former hostility has been laid aside. The Antiburghers consider
the Burghers as too lax, and not sufficiently steadfast to their testimony. The
Burghers on the other hand, contend that the Antiburghers are too rigid, in
that they have introduced new terms of communion into the society.
What follows in this article is a father account
of those who are commonly called the Burgher Seceders. As there were among
them, from the commencement of their secessions, several students who had been
educated at one or other of the universities, they appointed one of their
ministers to give lectures in theology, and train up candidates for the
ministry.
Where a congregation is very numerous, as in
Stirling, Dunfermline, and Perth, it is formed into a collegiate charge, and
provided with two ministers. They are erected into six different presbyteries,
united in one general synod, which commonly meets at Edinburgh in May and
September. they have also a synod in Ireland, composed of three or four
different presbyteries. They are legally tolerated in Ireland; and government,
some years ago, granted 500l. per annum, and of late an additional 500l. which,
when divided among them, affords to each minister about 20l. over and above the
stipend which he receives from his hearers. These have, besides, a presbytery
in Nova Scotia; and, some years ago, it is said, that the Burgher and the
Antiburgher ministers residing in the United States formed a coalition, and
joined in a general synod, which they call the Synod of New York and
Pennsylvania. They all preach the doctrines contained in the Westminster
Confession of Faith, and Catechisms, as they believe these to be founded on the
sacred Scriptures. They catechise their hearers publicly, and visit them from
house to house once every year. They will not give the Lord's supper to those
who are ignorant of the principles of the Gospel, nor to such as are scandalous
and immoral in their lives. They condemn private baptism; nor will they admit
those who are grossly ignorant and profane to be sponsors for their children. Believing
that the people have a natural right to choose their own pastors, the
settlement of their ministers always proceeds upon a popular election; and the
candidate, who is elected by the majority, is ordained among them. Convinced
that the charge of souls is a trust of the greatest importance, they carefully
watch over the morals of their students, and direct them to such course of
reading and study as they judge most proper to qualify them for the profitable
discharge of the pastoral duties. At the ordination of their ministers, they
use a formula of the same kind with that of the established church, which their
ministers are bound to subscribe when called to it; and if any of them teach
doctrines contrary to the Scriptures, or the Westminster Confession of Faith,
they are sure of being thrown out of their communion. By this means, uniformity
of sentiment is preserved among them; nor has any of their ministers, excepting
one, been prosecuted for error in doctrine since the commencement of their
secession.
They believe that the holy Scriptures are the
sole criterion of truth, and the only rule to direct mankind to glorify and
enjoy God, the chief and eternal good; and that "the supreme Judge, by
which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all the decrees
of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men and private spirits,
are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but
the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures." They are fully persuaded,
however, that the standards of public authority in the church of Scotland
exhibit a just and consistent view of the meaning and design of the holy
Scriptures with regard to doctrine, worship, government, and discipline; and
they so far differ from the dissenters in England, in that they hold these
standards to be not only articles of peace and a test of orthodoxy, but as a
bond of union and fellowship. They consider a simple declaration of adherence
to the Scriptures as too equivocal a proof of unity in sentiment, because
Arians,
Socinians, and Arminians, make such a confession of their faith, while they
retain sentiments which they (the Seceders) apprehend are subversive of the
great doctines of the Gospel. They believe that Jesus Christ is the only King
and Head of the church, which is his body; that it is his sole prerogative to
enact laws for the government of his kingdom, which is not of this world; and
that the church is not possessed of a legislative, but only of an executive
power, to be exercised in explaining and applying to their proper objects and
end those laws which Christ hath published in the Scriptures. Those doctrines
which they teach relative to faith and practice are exhibited at great length
in an Explanation of the Westminster Assembly's Shorter Catechism, by way of
question and answer, in two volumes, composed chiefly by Mr. James Fisher, late
of Glasgow, and published by desire of their synod.
For these fifty years past, the grounds of their
secession, they allege, have been greatly enlarged by the public
administrations of the established church, and particularly by the uniform
execution of the law respecting patronage, which, they say, has obliged many
thousands of private Christians to withdraw from the parish churches, and join
their society.
In most of their congregations, they celebrate
the Lord's supper twice in the year; and they catechise their young people
concerning their knowledge of the principles of religion previously to their
admission to that sacrament.--When any of them fall into the sin of fornication
or adultery, the scandal is regularly purged according to the form of process
in the established church; and those of the delinquents who do not submit to
adequate censure are publicly declared to be fugitives from discipline, and are
expelled the society. they never accept a sum of money as a commutation for the
offence. They condemn all clandestine and irregular marriages; nor will they
marry any persons unless they have been proclaimed in the parish church on two
different Lord's days at least.
The constitution of the Antiburgher church
differs very little from that of the Burghers. The supreme court among them is
designated The General Associate Synod, having under its jurisdiction three
provincial synods in Scotland and one in Ireland. They, as well as the Burgher
Seceders, have a professor of theology, whose lectures every candidate for the
office of a preacher is obliged to attend.
[ Top of Page ]
A collective term, comprehending all such as follow the doctrines and opinions of some divine, philosopher, &c. The word sect, says Dr. Campbell, (Prelim. Diss.) among the Jews, was not in its application entirely coincident with the same term as applied by Christians to the subdivisions subsisting among themselves. We, if I mistake not, invariably use it of those who form separate communions, and do not associate with one another in religious worship and ceremonies. Thus we call Papists, Lutherans, Calvinists, different sects, not so much on account of their differences in opinion, as because they have established to themselves different fraternities, to which, in what regards public worship, they confine themselves; the several denominations above-mentioned having no inter-community with one another in sacred matters. High church and low church we call only parties, because they have not formed separate communions. Great and known differences in opinion, when followed by no external breach in the society, are not considered with us as constituting distinct sects, though their differences in opinion may give rise to mutual aversion. Now, in the Jewish sects (if we except the Samaritans,) there were no separate communities errected. The same temple, and the same synagogues, were attended alike by Pharisees and by Sadducees: nay, there were often of both denominations in the Sanhedrim, and even in the priesthood.--Another difference was also, that the name of the sect was not applied to all the people who adopted the same opinions, but solely to the men of eminence among them who were considered as the leaders of the party.
[ Top of Page ]
See CLERGY.
[ Top of Page ]
A denomination in the second century which derived their name from Secundus, a disciple of Valentine. He maintained the doctrine of two eternal principles, viz. light and darkness, whence arose the good and evil that are observable in the universe. See VALENTINIANS.
[ Top of Page ]
One who decoys or draws away another from that which is right.
[ Top of Page ]
A denomination which arose in the year 1645. They derived their name from their maintaining that the true church ministry, Scripture, and ordinances, were lost, for which they were seeking. They taught that the Scriptures were uncertain; that present miracles were necessary to faith; that our ministry is without authority; and that our worship and ordinances are unnecessary or vain.
[ Top of Page ]
Disciples of Seleucus, a philosopher of Galatia, who, about the year 380, adopted the sentiments of Hermogenes and those of Audaeus. He taught, with the Valentinians, that Jesus Christ assumed a body only in appearance. He also maintained that the world was not made by God, but was co-eternal with him; and that the soul was only an animated fire created by the angels; that Christ does not sit at the right hand of the Father in a human body, but that he lodged his body in the sun, according to Ps. xix. 4; and that the pleasures of beatitude consisted in corporeal delight.
[ Top of Page ]
Includes all those various frauds which we practise on urselves in forming a judgment, or receiving an impression of our state, character, and conduct; or those deceits which make our hearts impose on us in making us promises, if they may be so termed, which are not kept, and ontracting engagements which are never performed. Self-deception, as one observes, appears in the following cases: "1. In judging of our own character, on which we too easily confer the name of self-examination, how often may we detect ourselves in enhancing the merit of the good qualities we possess, and in giving ourselves credit for others,which we really have not.--2. When several motives or passions concur in prompting us to any action, we too easily assign the chief place and effect to the best.--3. We are too prone to flatter ourselves by indulging the notion that our habits of vice are but individual acts, into which we have been seduced by occasional temptations, while we are easily led to assign the name of habits to our occasional acts and individual instances of virtue.--4. We confound the mere assent of the understanding naturally, attended by some correspondent but transient sensibilities, with the impulses of the affections and determination of the will.--5. We are apt to ascribe to settled principles the good actions, which are the mere effect of natural temper.--6. As sometimes, in estimating the character of others, we too hastily infer the right motive from the outward act; so in judging of ourselves we over-rate the worth, by over-valuing the motives of our actions.--7. We often confound the non-appearance of a vicious affection with its actual extinction.--8. We often deceive ourselves by comparing our actual with our former character and conduct, and perhaps too easily ascribing to the extirpation of vicious, or tha implantation of virtuous habits, that improvement which is owing merely to the lapse of time, advancing age, altered circumstances, &c.--9. another general and fertile source of self-deception is our readiness to excuse, or at least to extemate, the vices of our particular station: while we congratulate ourselves on the absence of other vices which we are under no temptation to commit.--10. We deceive ourselves by supposing our remorse for sin is genuine, when, alas, it does not lead to repentance.--11. By forming improper judgments of others, and forming our own conduct upon theirs." From this view we may learn, 1. That the objects as to which men deceive themselves are very numerous; God, Jesus Christ, the holy Spirit, the Bible and Gospel doctrines, religious experience, sin, heaven, hell, &c.--2. The causes are great and powerful; sin, Satan, the heart, the world, interest, prejudice.--3. The numbers who deceive themselves are great; the young, the aged, the rich, the poor, self-godly.--4. The evils are many and awful. It renders us the slaves of procrastination, leads us to over-rate ourselves, flatters us with an idea of easy victory, confirms our evil habits, and exposes us to the greatest danger.--5. We should endeavour to understand and practise the means not to be deceived; such as strict self-inquiry, prayer, watchfulness, and ever taking the Scriptures for our guide.--6. And lastly, we should learn to ascertin the evidence of not being deceived, which are such as these: when sin is the object of our increasing fear, a tenderness of conscience, when we can appeal to God as to the sincerity of our motives and aims, when dependent on God's promise, providence, and grace, and when conformed to him in all righteousness and true holiness. Christ. Obs. 1802, p. 632, 633.
[ Top of Page ]
The giving up of ourselves unreservedly to God; that we may serve him in righteousness and true holiness. See Howe's Works, vol. i. oct. edit.
[ Top of Page ]
Implies not only the preservation of one's life,
but also the protection of our property, because without property life cannot
be preserved in a civilized nation.
Some condemn all resistance, whatsoever be the
evil offered, or whosoever be the person that offers it; others will not admit
that it should pass any farther than bare resistance; others say, that it must
never be carried so far as hazarding the life of the assailant; and others
again, who deny it not to be lawful in some cases to kill the aggressor, at the
same time affirm it to be a thing more laudable and consonant to the Gospel, to
choose rather to lose one's life, in imitation of Christ, than to secure it at
the expense of another's in pursuance of the permission of nature. But.
"Notwithstanding," says Grove,
"the great names which may appear on the side of any of these opinions, I
cannot but think self-defence, though it proceeds to the killing of another to
save one's self, is in common cases not barely permitted, but enjoined by
nature; and that a man would be wanting to the Author of his being, to society,
and to himself, to abandon that life with which he is put in trust. That a
person forfeits his own life to the sword of justice, by taking away another's
unprovoked, is a principle not to be disputed. This being so, I ask, whence
should arise the obligation to let another kill me, rather than venture to save
myself by destroying my enemy? It cannot arise from a regard to society, which,
by my suffering another to kill me, loses two lives; that of an honest man by
unjust violence, and that of his murderer, if it can be called a loss, by the
hand of justice. Whereas, by killing the invader of my life, I only take a
life, which must oterwise have been forfeited, and preserve the life of an
innocent person. Nor, for the same reason, can there be any such obligation
arising from the love of our neighbour; since I do not really save his life b
parting with my own, but only leave him to be put to death after a more
ignominious manner by the public executioner. And if it be said that I dispatch
him with his sins upon him into the other world, which he might have lived long
enough to repent of, if legally condemned: as he must answer for that, who
brought me under a necessity of using this method for my own preservation; so I
myself may not be prepared, or may not think myself so, or so well assured of
it as to venture into the presence of my great Judge; and no charity obliges me
to prefer the safety of another's soul to my own. Self-defence, therefore, may
be with justice practised, 1. Incase of an attempt made upon the life of a
person, against which he has no other way of securing himself but repelling force
by force.--2. It is generally esteemed lawful to kill in the defence of
chastity, supposing there be no other way of preserving it." See Grove's
Moral Philosophy. Also Hints on the Lowfulness of Self-defence, by a Scotch
Dissenter.
[ Top of Page ]
A term that denotes our relinquishing every thing that stands in opposition to the divine command, and our own spiritual welfare, Matthew, xvi. 24. It does not consist in denying what a man is, or what he has: in refusing favours converred on us in the course of providence; in rejecting the use of God's creatures; in being careless of life, health, and family; in macerating the body, or abusing it in any respect; but in renouncing al those pleasures, profets, views, connections, or practices, that are prejudicial to the true interests of the soul. The understanding must be so far denied as not to lean upon it, independent of divine instruction, Prov. iii. 5, 6. The will must be denied, so far as it opposes the will of God, Eph. v. 17. The affections, when they become inordinate, Col. iii. 5. The gratification of the members of the body must be denied when out of their due course, Rom. vi. 12, 13. The honours of the world, and praise of men, when they become a snare, Heb. xi. 24-26. Worldly emoluments, when to be obtained in an unlawful way, or when standing in opposition to religion and usefulness, Matt. iv. 20-22. Friends and relatives, so far as they oppose the truth, and would influence us to oppose it too, Gen. xii. 1. Our own righteousness, so as to depend upon it, Phil. iii. 8, 9. Life itself must be laid down, if called for, in the cause of Christ, Matt. xvi. 24, 25. In fine, every thing that is sinful must be denied, however pleasant, and apparently advantageous, since, without holiness, no man shall see the Lord, Heb. xii. 14. To enable us to practise this duty, let us consider the injunction of Christ, Matt. xvi. 24; his eminent example, Phil. ii. 5, 8; the encouragement he gives, Matt. xvi. 25; the example of his saints in all ages; Heb. xi.; the advantages that attend it, and, above all, learn to implore the agency of that Divine Spirit, without whom we can do nothing.
[ Top of Page ]
Is the calling ourselves to a strict account for all the actions of our lives, comparing them with the word of God, the rule of duty; considering how much evil we have committed, and good we have omitted. It is a duty founded on a divine command, 2 Cor. xiii. 5. and ought to be, 1. Deliberately.--2. Frequently.--3. Impartially.--4. Diligently.--5. Wisely.--And, 6. With a desire of amendment. This, though a legal duty, as some modern Christians would call it, is essential to our improvement, our felicity, and interest. "They," says Mr. Wiberforce, (Pract. View.) "who, in a crazy vessel, navigate a sea wherein are shoals and currents innumerable, if they would keep their course, or reach their port in safety, must carefully repair the smallest injuries, and often throw out their line, and take their observations. In the voyage of life, also, the Christian who would not make shipwreck on his faith, while he is habitually watchful and provident, must make it his express business to look into his state, and ascertain his progress."
[ Top of Page ]
Is his entire existence of himself, not owing it to any other being whatsoever: and thus God would exist, if there were to other being in the whole compass of nature but himself. See EXISTENCE and ETERNITY OF GOD.
[ Top of Page ]
See HEART.
[ Top of Page ]
See SELF-SEEKING.
[ Top of Page ]
The knowledge of one's own character, abilities, duties, principles, prejudices, tempers, secret springs of action, thoughts, memory, taste, views in life, virtues, and vices. This knowledge is commanded in the Scriptures, Psalm iv. 4. 2 Cor. xiii. 5. and is of the greatest utility, as it is the spring of self-possession, leads to humility, steadfastness, charity, moderation, self-denial, and promotes our usefulness in the world. To obtain it, there should be watchfulness, frequent and close attention to the operations of our own minds, regard had to the opinions of others, conversation, reading the Scriptures, and dependence on divine grace. See Mason on Self-knowledge; Baxter's Self-Acquaintance; Locke on the Underst.; Watts's Improvement of the Mind.
[ Top of Page ]
Is that instinctive principle which impels every
animal, rational and irrational, to preserve its life and promote its own
happiness. "It is very generally confounded with selfishness; but,
perhaps, the one propensity is distinct from the other. Every man loves
himself, but every man is not selfish. The selfish man grasps at all immediate
advantages, regardless of the consequences which his conduct may have upon his
neighbour. Self-love only prompts him who is actuated by it to procure to
himself the greatest possible sum of happiness during the whole of his
existence. In this pursuit, the rational self-lover will often forego a present
enjoyment to obtain a greater and more permanent one in reversion; and he will
as often submit to a present pain to avoid a greater hereafter. Self-love, as
distinguished from selfishness, always comprehends the whole of a man's
existence; and, in that extended sense of the phrase, every man is a
self-lover; for, with eternity in his view, it is surely not possible for the
most disinterested of the human race not to prefer himself to all other men, if
their future and everlasting interests could come into competition. This,
indeed, they never can do; for though the introduction of evil into the world,
and the different ranks which it makes necessary in society, put it in the
power of a man to raise himself in the present state by the depression of his
neighbour, or by the practice of injustice; yet, in the pursuit of the glorious
prize which is set before us, there can be no rivalship among the competitors.
The success of one is no injury to another; and therefore, in this snese of the
phrase, self-love is not only lawful, but absolutely unavoidable."
Self-love, however, says Jortin (ser. 13. vol. iv. ) is vicious, 1. When it
leads us to judge too favourably of our faults.--2. When we think too well of
our righteousness, and over-value our good actions, and are pure in our own
eyes.--3. When we over-value our abilities, and entertain too good an opinion
of our knowledge and capacity.--4. When we are proud and vain of inferior
things, and value ourselves upon the station and circumstances in which, not
our own deserts, but some other cause, has placed us.--5. When we make our
worldly interest, convenience, ease or pleasure, the great end of our actions.
Much has been said about the doctrine of
disinterested love to God. It must be confessed, that we ought to love him for
his own excellences; yet it is difficult to form an idea how we can love God
unconnected with any interest to ourselves. What, indeed, we ought to do, and
what we really do, or can do, is very different. There is an everlasting
obligation on men to love God for what he is, however incapable of doine it;
but, at the same time, our love to him is our interest; nor can we, in the
present state, I think, while possessed of such bodies and such minds, love God
without including a sense of his relative goodness. "We love him,"
says John, "because he first loved us." See LOVE.
[ Top of Page ]
The aiming at our own interest only in every thing we do. It must be distinguished from that regard which we ought to pay to the preservation of our health, the cultivation of our minds, the lawful concerns of business, and the salvation of our souls. Self-seeking evidences itself by parsimoniousness, oppression, neglect, and contempt of others, rebellion, sedition, egotism, immoderate attempts to gain fame, power, pleasure, money, and frequently by gross acts of lying and injustice. Its evils are numerous. It is highly dishonourable and abasing; transforming a man into any thing or every thing for his own interest. It is sinful, and the source of innumerable sins; as perjury, hypocrisy, falsehood, idolatry, persecution, and murder itself. It is dangerous. It excites contempt, is the source of tyranny, discord, war, and makes a man a slave, and exposes him to the just indignation of God. The remedies to prevent or suppress this evil are these. Consider that it is absolutely prohibited. Jerem. xlv. 5. Luke ix. 23. Heb. xiii. 5. Col. iii. 5. A mark of a wicked, degenerate mind; that the most awful curses are pronounced against it. Isa. v. 18. hab. iii. 9, 12. Isa. xv. 1, 2. Amos vi. 1. Mic. ii. 1, 2; that it is contrary to the example of all wise and good men: that the most awful examples of the punishment of this sin are recorded in Scripture; as Pharaoh, Achan, Haman, Gehazi, Absalom, Ananias and Sapphira, Judas, and many others.
[ Top of Page ]
So called from Sembianus their leader, who condemned all use of wine as evil of itself. He persuaded his followers that wine was a production of Satan and the earth, denied the resurrection of the body, and rejected most of the books of the Old Testament.
[ Top of Page ]
Were thus denominated, because, in profession, they condemned the errors of the Arians, but in reality maintained their principles, only palliating and concealing them under softer and more moderate terms. They would not allow, with the orthodox, that the Son was of the same substance, but only of a like substance with the Father; and thus, though in expression they differed from the orthodox in a single letter only, yet in effect they denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. The Semi-arianism of the moderns consists in their maintaining that the Son was, from all eternity, begotten by the will of the Father; contrary to the doctrine of those who teach that the eternal generation is necessary. Such, at least, are the respective opinions of Dr. Clarke and Bishop Bull.
[ Top of Page ]
A name anciently, and even at this day, given to
such as retain some tincture of Pelagianism.
Cassian, who had been a deacon of Constantinople,
who was afterwards a priest at Marceilles, was the chief of these
Semi-Pelagians, whose leading principles were, 1. That God did not dispense his
grace to one more than another, in consequence of predestination, i.e. an
eternal and absolute decree, but was willing to save all men, if they complied
with the terms of his Gospel.--2. That Christ died for all men.--3. That the
grace purchased by Christ, and necessary to salvation, was offered to all
men.--4. That man, before he received grace, was capable of faith and holy
desires.--5. That man was born free, and was, consequently, capable of
resisting the influences of grace, or of complying with its suggestion.--6. The
Semi-Pelagians were very numerous; and the doctrine of Cassian, though
variously explained, was received in the greatest part of the monastic schools
in Gaul, from whence it spread itself far and wide through the European
provinces. As to the Greeks, and other Eastern Christians, they had embraced
the Semi-Pelagian doctrines before Cassian. In the sixth century the
controversy between the Semi-Pelagians and the disciples of Augustin prevailed
much, and continued to divide the Western churches.
[ Top of Page ]
Properly signifies that internal act by which we are made conscious of pleasure or pain felt at the organ of sense. As to sensations and feelings, says Cr. Reid, some belong to the animal part of our nature, and are common to us with the brutes; others belong to the rational and moral part. The first are more properly called sensations; the last, feelings. The French word sentiment is common to both. The design of the Almighty in giving us both the painful and agreeable feelings is, for the most part, obvious, and well deserving our notice. 1. The painful sensations are admonitions to avoid what would hurt us; and the agreeable sensations to invite us to those actions that are necessary to the preservation of the individual or the kind.--2. By the same means, nature invites us to moderate bodily exercise, and admonishes us to avoid idleness and inactivity on the one hand, and excessive labour on the other.--3. The moderate exercise of all our rational powers gives pleasure.--4. Every species of beauty is beheld with pleasure, and every species of deformity with disgust.--5. The benevolent affections are all accompanied with an agreeable feeling; the malevolent on the contrary; and,--6. The highest, the noblest, and the most durable pleasure is that of doing well; and the most bitter and painful sentiment, the anguish and remorse of a guilty conscience. See Theorie des Sentiments Agreables; Reid on the Intellectual Powers, p. 332; Kaims's Elements of Criticism, vol. ii. p. 501.
[ Top of Page ]
A faculty of the soul, whereby it perceives
external objects by means of impressions made on the organs of the body.
Moral Sense is said to be an apprehension of that
beauty or deformity which arises in the mind by a kind of natural instinct,
previously to any reasoning upon the remoter consequences of actions. Whether
this really exists or not, is disputed. On the affirmative side it is said,
that, 1. We approve or disapprove certain actions without deliberation.--2.
This approbation or disapprobation is uniform and universal. But against this
opinion it is answered, that, 1. This uniformity of sentiment does not pervade
all nations.--2. Approbation of particular conduct arises from a sense of its
advantages. The idea continues when the motive no longer exists; receives
strength from authority, imitation, &c. The efficacy of imitation is most
observable in children.--3. There are no maxims universally true, but bend to
circumstances.--4. There can be no idea without an object, and instinct is
inseparable from the idea of the object. See Paley's Moral Philosophy, vol. 1.
chap. v.; Hutcheson on the Passions, p. 245, &c.; Mason's Sermons, vol. i.
p. 253.
[ Top of Page ]
The name given to a Greek version of the books
of the Old Testament, from its being supposed to be the work of seventy-two
Jews, who are usually called the seventy interpreters, because seventy is a
round number.
Aristobulus, who was a tutor to Ptolemy Physcon;
Philo, who lived in our Saviour's time, and was contemporary with the apostles;
and Josephus, speak of this translation as made by seventy-two interpreters, by
the care of Demetrius Phalereus, in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. All the
Christian writers, during the first fifteen centuries of the Christian aera,
have admitted this account of the Septuagint as an undoubted fact; but, since
the reformation, critics have boldly called it in question. But whatever
differences of opinion there have been as to the mode of translation, it is
universally acknowledged that such a version, whole or in part, existed; and it
is pretty evident that most of the books must have been translated before our
Saviour's time, as they are quoted by him. It must also be considered as a
wonderful providence in favour of the religion of Jesus. It prepared the way
for his coming, and afterwa