Chapter CI: Part 101

Several are of opinion, that from them came the queen of Sheba, 1 Kings x, 1, 2; and that of these Sabeans the psalmist speaks, Psalm lxxii, 10, “The kings of Arabia and Sheba shall give gifts;” and Jeremiah, vi, 20: “What are the perfumes of Sheba to me?” and Isaiah, lx, 6: “All who come from Sheba shall offer gold and perfumes.” 3. Sabeans, sons of Shebah, son of Reumah, Gen. x, 7, probably dwelt in Arabia Felix. Probably it is of these Ezekiel speaks, xxvii, 22, who came with their merchandise to the fairs of Tyre: and Joel, iii, 8: “I will deliver up your children to the tribe of Judah, who shall sell them to the Sabeans, a very distant nation.” 4. Sabeans, descendants from Joktan, may very well be those mentioned by Ezekiel, xxvii, 23: “Saba, Assur, and Chelmad, thy dealers.” They are thought to have inhabited beyond the Euphrates; whence they are connected with Asshur and Chilmad, Gen. x, 28; 1 Chron. i, 22. 5. Sabeans are also placed in Africa, in the isle of Meroë. Josephus brings the queen of Sheba from thence, and pretends that it had the name of Shebah, or Saba, before that of Meroë.

SABELLIANS were so called from Sabellius, a presbyter, or, according to others, a bishop, of Upper Egypt, who was the founder of the sect. As, from their doctrine, it follows that God the Father suffered, they were hence called by their adversaries, Patripassians; and, as their idea of the trinity was by some called a modal trinity, they have likewise been called Modalists. Sabellius having been a disciple of Noëtus, Noëtians is another name by which his followers have sometimes been known; and as, from their fears of infringing on the fundamental doctrine of all true religion, the unity of God, they neglected all distinctions of persons, and taught the notion of one God with three names, they may hence be also considered as a species of Unitarians. Sabellius flourished about the middle of the third century, and his doctrine seems to have had many followers for a short time. Its growth, however, was soon checked by the opposition made to it by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, and the sentence of condemnation pronounced upon its author by Pope Dionysius, in a council held at Rome, A. D. 263. Sabellius taught that there is but one person in the Godhead; and, in confirmation of this doctrine, he made use of this comparison: As man, though composed of body and soul, is but one person, so God, though he is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is but one person. Hence the Sabellians reduced the three persons in the trinity to three characters or relations, and maintained that the Word and Holy Spirit are only virtues, emanations, or functions, of the Deity; that he who is in heaven is the Father of all things; that he descended into the virgin, became a child, and was born of her as a son; and that, having accomplished the mystery of our redemption, he effused himself upon the Apostles in tongues of fire, and was then denominated the Holy Ghost. This they explain by resembling God to the sun, the illuminative virtue or quality of which was the word, and its quickening virtue the Holy Spirit. The word, according to their doctrine, was darted, like a divine ray, to accomplish the work of redemption; and having reäscended to heaven, the influences of the Father were communicated, after a like manner, to the Apostles. They also attempted to illustrate this mystery, by one light kindled by another; by the fountain and stream, and by the stock and branch. With respect to the sentiments of Sabellius himself, the accounts are various. According to some, he taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were one subsistence, and one person, with three names; and that, in the Old Testament, the Deity delivered the law as the Father; in the New Testament dwelt among men as the Son; and descended on the Apostles as the Holy Spirit. According to Mosheim, his sentiments differed from those of Noëtus, in this, that the latter was of opinion, that the person of the Father had assumed the human nature of Christ; whereas Sabellius maintained, that a certain energy only proceeded from the supreme Parent, or a certain portion of the divine nature was united to the Son of God, the man Jesus; and he considered, in the same manner, the Holy Ghost as a portion of the everlasting Father.

Between the system of Sabellianism and what is termed the indwelling scheme, there appears to be a considerable resemblance, if it be not precisely the same, differently explained. The indwelling scheme is chiefly founded on that passage in the New Testament, where the Apostle speaking of Christ says, “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Dr. Watts, toward the close of his life, adopted this opinion, and wrote several pieces in its defence. His sentiments on the trinity appear to have been, that the Godhead, the Deity itself, personally distinguished as the Father, was united to the man Christ Jesus; in consequence of which union or indwelling of the Godhead, he became properly God. Mr. Palmer observes, that Dr. Watts conceived this union to have subsisted before the Saviour’s appearance in the flesh, and that the human soul of Christ existed with the Father from before the foundation of the world: on which ground he maintains the real descent of Christ from heaven to earth, and the whole scene of his humiliation, which he thought incompatible with the common opinion concerning him.

SACKCLOTH, a sort of mourning worn at the death of a friend or relation. In great calamities, in penitence, in trouble also, they wore sackcloth about their bodies: “Gird yourselves with sackcloth, and mourn for Abner,” 2 Sam. iii, 31. “Let us gird ourselves with sackcloth; and let us go and implore the clemency of the king of Israel,” 1 Kings xx, 31. Ahab rent his clothes, put on a shirt of haircloth next to his skin, fasted, and lay upon sackcloth, 1 Kings xxi, 27. When Mordecai was informed of the destruction threatened to his nation, he put on sackcloth, and covered his head with ashes, Esther iv. On the contrary, in time of joy, or on hearing good news, those who were clad in sackcloth tore it from their bodies, and cast it from them, Psalm xxx, 11. The prophets were often clothed in sackcloth, and generally in coarse clothing. The Lord bids Isaiah to put off the sackcloth from about his body, and to go naked, that is, without his upper garment, Isaiah xx, 2. Zechariah says that false prophets shall no longer prophesy in sackcloth, to deceive the simple, Zech. xiii, 4.

SACRAMENT. There is no word in the Bible which corresponds to the word sacrament. It is a Latin word; and, agreeably to its derivation, it was applied by the early writers of the western church to any ceremony of our holy religion, especially if it were figurative or mystical. But a more confined signification of this word by degrees prevailed, and in that stricter sense it has been always used by the divines of modern times. Sacraments, says Dr. Hill, are conceived in the church of Rome to consist of matter, deriving, from the action of the priest in pronouncing certain words, a divine virtue, by which grace is conveyed to the soul of every person who receives them. It is supposed to be necessary that the priest, in pronouncing the words, has the intention of giving to the matter that divine virtue; otherwise it remains in its original state. On the part of those who receive the sacrament, it is required that they be free from any of those sins, called in the church of Rome mortal; but it is not required of them to exercise any good disposition, to possess faith, or to resolve that they shall amend their lives; for such is conceived to be the physical virtue of a sacrament administered by a priest with a good intention, that, unless when it is opposed by the obstacle of a mortal sin, the very act of receiving it is sufficient. This act was called, in the language of the schools, _opus operatum_, the work done independently of any disposition of mind attending the deed; and the superiority of the sacraments of the New Testament over the sacraments of the Old was thus expressed, that the sacraments of the Old Testament were effectual _ex opere operantis_, from the piety and faith of the persons to whom they were administered; while the sacraments of the New Testament convey grace, _ex opere operato_, from their own intrinsic virtue, and an immediate physical influence upon the mind of him who receives them. This notion represents the sacraments as a mere charm, the use of which, being totally disjoined from every mental exercise, cannot be regarded as a reasonable service. It gives men the hope of receiving, by the use of a charm, the full participation of the grace of God, although they continue to indulge that very large class of sins, to which the accommodating morality of the church of Rome extends the name of venial; and yet it makes this high privilege entirely dependent upon the intention of another, who, although he performs all the outward acts which belong to the sacrament, may, if he chooses, withhold the communication of that physical virtue, without which the sacrament is of none avail.

The Socinian doctrine concerning the nature of the sacraments is founded upon a sense of the absurdity and danger of the popish doctrine, and a solicitude to avoid any approach to it, and runs into the opposite extreme. It is conceived that the sacraments are not essentially distinct from any other rites or ceremonies; that, as they consist of a symbolical action, in which something external and material is employed to represent what is spiritual and invisible, they may by this address to the senses be of use in reviving the remembrance of past events, and in cherishing pious sentiments; but that their effect is purely moral, and that they contribute, by that moral effect, to the improvement of the individual in the same manner with reading the Scriptures, and many other exercises of religion. It is admitted, indeed, by the Socinians, that the sacraments are of farther advantage to the whole society of Christians, as being the solemn badges by which the disciples of Jesus are discriminated from other men, and the appointed method of declaring that faith in Christ, by the public profession of which Christians minister to the improvement of one another. But in these two points, the moral effect upon the individual, and the advantage to society, is contained all that a Socinian holds concerning the general nature of the sacraments. This doctrine, like all other parts of the Socinian system, represents religion in the simple view of being a lesson of righteousness, and loses sight of that character of the Gospel, which is meant to be implied in calling it a covenant of grace. The greater part of Protestants, therefore, following an expression of the Apostle, Rom. iv, 11, when he is speaking of circumcision, consider the sacraments as not only signs, but also seals, of the covenant of grace. Those who apply this phrase to the sacraments of the New Testament, admit every part of the Socinian doctrine concerning the nature of sacraments, and are accustomed to employ that doctrine to correct those popish errors upon this subject which are not yet eradicated from the minds of many of the people. But although they admit that the Socinian doctrine is true as far as it goes, they consider it as incomplete. For, while they hold that the sacraments yield no benefit to those upon whom the signs employed in them do not produce the proper moral effect, they regard these signs as intended to represent an inward invisible grace, which proceeds from him by whom they are appointed, and as pledges that that grace will be conveyed to all in whom the moral effect is produced. The sacraments, therefore, in their opinion, constitute federal acts, in which the persons who receive them with proper dispositions, solemnly engage to fulfil their part of the covenant, and God confirms his promise to them in a sensible manner; not as if the promise of God were of itself insufficient to render any event certain, but because this manner of exhibiting the blessings promised gives a stronger impression of the truth of the promise, and conveys to the mind an assurance that it will be fulfilled. According to this account of the sacraments, the express institution of God is essentially requisite to constitute their nature; and in this respect sacraments are distinguished from what may be called the ceremonies of religion. Ceremonies are in their nature arbitrary; and different means may be employed by different persons with success, according to their constitution, their education, and their circumstances, to cherish the sentiments of devotion, and to confirm good purposes. But no rite which is not ordained by God can be conceived to be a seal of his promise, or the pledge of any event that depends upon his good pleasure. Hence, that any rite may come up to our idea of a sacrament, we require in it, not merely a vague and general resemblance between the external matter which is the visible substance of the rite, and the thing thereby signified, but also words of institution, and a promise by which the two are connected together; and hence we reject five of the seven sacraments that are numbered in the church of Rome, because in some of the five we do not find any matter without which there is not that sign which enters into our definition of a sacrament; and in others we do not find any promise connecting the matter used with the grace said to be thereby signified, although upon this connection the essence of a sacrament depends.

SACRIFICE, properly so called, is the solemn infliction of death on a living creature, generally by the effusion of its blood, in a way of religious worship; and the presenting of this act to God, as a supplication for the pardon of sin, and a supposed means of compensation for the insult and injury thereby offered to his majesty and government. Sacrifices have, in all ages, and by almost every nation, been regarded as necessary to placate the divine anger, and render the Deity propitious. Though the Gentiles had lost the knowledge of the true God, they still retained such a dread of him, that they sometimes sacrificed their own offspring for the purpose of averting his anger. Unhappy and bewildered mortals, seeking relief from their guilty fears, hoped to atone for past crimes by committing others still more awful; they gave their first-born for their transgression, the fruit of their body for the sin of their soul. The Scriptures sufficiently indicate that sacrifices were instituted by divine appointment, immediately after the entrance of sin, to prefigure the sacrifice of Christ. Accordingly, we find Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job, and others, offering sacrifices in the faith of the Messiah; and the divine acceptance of their sacrifices is particularly recorded. But, in religious institutions, the Most High has ever been jealous of his prerogative. He alone prescribes his own worship; and he regards as vain and presumptuous every pretence of honouring him which he has not commanded. The sacrifice of blood and death could not have been offered to him without impiety, nor would he have accepted it, had not his high authority pointed the way by an explicit prescription.

Under the law, sacrifices of various kinds were appointed for the children of Israel; the paschal lamb, Exod. xii, 3; the holocaust, or whole burnt-offering, Lev. vii, 8; the sin-offering, or sacrifice of expiation, Lev. iv, 3, 4; and the peace-offering, or sacrifice of thanksgiving, Lev. vii, 11, 12; all of which emblematically set forth the sacrifice of Christ, being the instituted types and shadows of it, Heb. ix, 9–15; x, 1. Accordingly, Christ abolished the whole of them when he offered his own sacrifice. “Above, when he said, Sacrifice, and offering, and burnt-offerings, and offering for sin, thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein, which are offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ once for all,” Heb. x, 8–10; 1 Cor. v, 7. In illustrating this fundamental doctrine of Christianity, the Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, sets forth the excellency of the sacrifice of our great High Priest above those of the law in various particulars. The legal sacrifices were only brute animals, such as bullocks, heifers, goats, lambs, &c; but the sacrifice of Christ was himself, a person of infinite dignity and worth, Heb. ix, 12, 13; i, 3; ix, 14, 26; x, 10. The former, though they cleansed from ceremonial uncleanness, could not possibly expiate sin, or purify the conscience from the guilt of it; and so it is said that God was not well pleased in them, Heb. x, 4, 5, 8, 11. But Christ, by the sacrifice of himself, hath effectually, and for ever, put away sin, having made an adequate atonement unto God for it, and by means of faith in it he also purges the conscience from dead works to serve the living God, Heb. ix, 10–26; Ephes. v, 2. The legal sacrifices were statedly offered, year after year, by which their insufficiency was indicated, and an intimation given that God was still calling sins to his remembrance, Heb. x, 3; but the last required no repetition, because it fully and at once answered all the ends of sacrifice, on which account God hath declared that he will remember the sins and iniquities of his people no more.

The term sacrifice is often used in a secondary or metaphorical sense, and applied to the good works of believers, and to the duties of prayer and praise, as in the following passages: “But to do good, and to communicate, forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased,” Heb. xiii, 16. “Having received of Epaphroditus the things which ye sent, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God,” Phil. iv, 18. “Ye are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ,” 1 Peter ii, 5. “By him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually; that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name,” Heb. xiii, 15. “I beseech you, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service,” Rom. xii, 1. “There is a peculiar reason,” says Dr. Owen, “for assigning this appellation to moral duties; for in every sacrifice there was a presentation of something unto God. The worshipper was not to offer that which cost him nothing; part of his substance was to be transferred from himself unto God. So it is in these duties; they cannot be properly observed without the alienation of something that was our own,--our time, ease, property, &c, and a dedication of it to the Lord. Hence they have the general nature of sacrifices.” The ceremonies used in offering the Jewish sacrifices require to be noticed as illustrative of many texts of Scripture, and some points of important doctrine. See ATONEMENT, OFFERINGS, EXPIATION, PROPITIATION, RECONCILIATION, and REDEMPTION.

SADDUCEES, a sect among the Jews. It is said that the principles of the Sadducees were derived from Antigonus Sochæus, president of the sanhedrim, about B. C. 250, who, rejecting the traditionary doctrines of the scribes, taught that man ought to serve God out of pure love, and not from hope of reward, or fear of punishment; and that they derived their name from Sadoc, one of his followers, who, mistaking or perverting this doctrine, maintained that there was no future state of rewards and punishments. Whatever foundation there may be for this account of the origin of the sect, it is certain, that in the time of our Saviour the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the dead, Acts xxiii, 8, and the existence of angels and spirits, or souls of departed men; though, as Mr. Hume observes, it is not easy to comprehend how they could at the same time admit the authority of the law of Moses. They carried their ideas of human freedom so far as to assert that men were absolutely masters of their own actions, and at full liberty to do either good or evil. Josephus even says that they denied the essential difference between good and evil; and, though they believed that God created and preserved the world, they seem to have denied his particular providence. These tenets, which resemble the Epicurean philosophy, led, as might be expected, to great profligacy of life; and we find the licentious wickedness of the Sadducees frequently condemned in the New Testament; yet they professed themselves obliged to observe the Mosaic law, because of the temporal rewards and punishments annexed to such observance; and hence they were always severe in their punishment of any crimes which tended to disturb the public tranquillity. The Sadducees rejected all tradition, and some authors have contended that they admitted only the books of Moses; but there seems no ground for that opinion, either in the Scriptures or in any ancient writer. Even Josephus, who was himself a Pharisee, and took every opportunity of reproaching the Sadducees, does not mention that they rejected any part of the Scriptures; he only says that “the Pharisees have delivered to the people many institutions as received from the fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses. For this reason the Sadducees reject these things, asserting that those things are binding which are written, but that the things received by tradition from the fathers are not to be observed.” Beside, it is generally believed that the Sadducees expected the Messiah with great impatience, which seems to imply their belief in the prophecies, though they misinterpreted their meaning. Confining all their hopes to this present world, enjoying its riches, and devoting themselves to its pleasures, they might well be particularly anxious that their lot of life should be cast in the splendid reign of this expected temporal king, with the hope of sharing in his conquests and glory; but this expectation was so contrary to the lowly appearance of our Saviour, that they joined their inveterate enemies, the Pharisees, in persecuting him and his religion. Josephus says, that the Sadducees were able to draw over to them the rich only, the people not following them; and he elsewhere mentions that this sect spread chiefly among the young. The Sadducees were far less numerous than the Pharisees, but they were in general persons of greater opulence and dignity. The council before whom our Saviour and St. Paul were carried consisted partly of Pharisees and partly of Sadducees.

SALAMIS, once a famous city in the isle of Cyprus, opposite to Seleucia, on the Syrian coast; and as it was the first place where the Gospel was preached, it was in the primitive times made the see of the primate of the whole island. It was destroyed by the Saracens, and from the ruins was built Famagusta, which was taken by the Turks in 1570. Here St. Paul preached, A. D. 44, Acts xiii, 5.

SALMON, son of Nahshon: he married Rahab, by whom he had Boaz, 1 Chron. ii, 11, 51, 54; Ruth iv, 20, 21; Matt. i, 4. He is named the father of Bethlehem, because his descendants peopled Bethlehem.

SALOME, the wife of Zebedee, and mother of St. James the greater, and St. John the evangelist, Matthew xxvii, 56; and one of those holy women who used to attend upon our Saviour in his journeyings, and to minister to him. She was the person who requested of Jesus Christ, that her two sons, James and John, might sit on his right and left hand when he should enter upon his kingdom, having then but the same obscure views as the rest of the disciples; but she gave proof of her faith when she followed Christ to Calvary, and did not forsake him even at the cross, Mark xv, 40; Matt. xxvii, 55, 56. She was also one of the women that brought perfumes to embalm him, and who came, for this purpose, to the sepulchre “early in the morning,” Mark xvi, 1, 2. At the tomb they saw two angels, who informed them that Jesus was risen. Returning to Jerusalem, Jesus appeared to them on the way, and said to them, “Be not afraid: go, tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.”

SALT. God appointed that salt should be used in all the sacrifices that were offered to him, Leviticus ii, 13. Salt is esteemed the symbol of wisdom and grace, Colossians iv, 6; Mark ix, 50; also of perpetuity and incorruption, Numbers xviii, 19; 2 Chronicles xiii, 5. The orientals were accustomed also to ratify their federal engagements by salt. This substance was, among the ancients, the emblem of friendship and fidelity, and therefore used in all their sacrifices and covenants. It was a sacred pledge of hospitality which they never ventured to violate. Numerous instances occur of travellers in Arabia, after being plundered and stripped by the wandering tribes of the desert, claiming the protection of some civilized Arab, who, after receiving them into his tent, and giving them salt, instantly relieves their distress, and never forsakes them till he has placed them in safety. An agreement, thus ratified, is called, in Scripture, “a covenant of salt.” The obligation which this symbol imposes on the mind of an oriental, is well illustrated by the Baron du Tott in the following anecdote: One who was desirous of his acquaintance promised in a short time to return. The baron had already attended him half way down the staircase, when stopping, and turning briskly to one of his domestics, “Bring me directly,” said he, “some bread and salt.” What he requested was brought; when, taking a little salt between his fingers, and putting it with a mysterious air on a bit of bread, he ate it with a devout gravity, assuring du Tott he might now rely on him.

Although salt, in small quantities, may contribute to the communicating and fertilizing of some kinds of stubborn soil, yet, according to the observations of Pliny, “all places in which salt is found are barren and produce nothing.” The effect of salt, where it abounds, on vegetation, is described by burning, in Deut. xxix, 23, “The whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt of burning.” Thus Volney, speaking of the borders of the Asphaltic lake, or Dead Sea, says, “The true cause of the absence of vegetables and animals is the acrid saltness of its waters, which is infinitely greater than that of the sea. The land surrounding the lake, being equally impregnated with that saltness, refuses to produce plants; the air itself, which is by evaporation loaded with it, and which moreover receives vapours of sulphur and bitumen, cannot suit vegetation; whence that dead appearance which reigns around the lake.” So a salt land, Jer. xvii, 6, is the same as the “parched places of the wilderness,” and is descriptive of barrenness, as saltness also is, Job xxxix, 6; Psalm cvii, 34; Ezek. xlvii, 11; Zech. ii, 9. Hence the ancient custom of sowing an enemy’s city, when taken,with salt, in token of perpetual desolation, Judges iv, 45; and thus in after times the city of Milan was burned, razed, sown with salt, and ploughed by the exasperated emperor, Frederic Barbarossa. The salt used by the ancients was what we call rock or fossil salt; and also that left by the evaporation of salt lakes. Both these kinds were impure, being mixed with earth, sand, &c, and lost their strength by deliquescence. Maundrell, describing the valley of salt, says, “On the side toward Gibul there is a small precipice, occasioned by the continual taking away of the salt; and in this you may see how the veins of it lie. I broke a piece of it, of which that part that was exposed to the sun, rain, and air, though it had the sparks and particles of salt, yet it had perfectly lost its savour; the inner part, which was connected with the rock, retained its savour, as I found by proof.” Christ reminds his disciples, Matt. v, 13, “Ye are the salt of the earth; but if the salt have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.” This is spoken of the mineral salt as mentioned by Maundrell, a great deal of which was made use of in offerings at the temple; such of it as had become insipid was thrown out to repair the road. The existence of such a salt, and its application to such a use, Schoetgenius has largely proved in his “_Horæ Hebraicæ_.” The salt unfit for the land, Luke xvi, 34, Le Clerc conjectures to be that made of wood ashes, which easily loses its savour, and becomes no longer serviceable.

_Effœtos cinerem immundum jactare per agros._
VIRGIL. Georg. i, 81.

“But blush not fattening dung to cast around,
Or sordid ashes o’er th’ exhausted ground.”
WARTON.

SALUTATIONS at meeting are not less common in the east than in the countries of Europe, but are generally confined to those of their own nation or religious party. When the Arabs salute each other, it is generally in these terms: _Salum aleikum_, “Peace be with you;” laying, as they utter the words, the right hand on the heart. The answer is, _Aleikum essalum_, “With you be peace;” to which aged people are inclined to add, “and the mercy and blessing of God.” The Mohammedans of Egypt and Syria never salute a Christian in these terms: they content themselves with saying to them, “Good day to you;” or, “Friend, how do you do?” Niebuhr’s statement is confirmed by Mr. Bruce, who says that some Arabs, to whom he gave the _salam_, or salutation of peace, either made no reply, or expressed their astonishment at his impudence in using such freedom. Thus it appears that the orientals have two kinds of salutations; one for strangers, and the other for their own countrymen, or persons of their own religious profession. The Jews in the days of our Lord seem to have generally observed the same custom; they would not address the usual compliment of, “Peace be with you,” to either Heathens or publicans; the publicans of the Jewish nation would use it to their countrymen who were publicans, but not to Heathens, though the more rigid Jews refused to do it either to publicans or Heathens. Our Lord required his disciples to lay aside the moroseness of Jews, and cherish a benevolent disposition toward all around them: “If ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so?” They were bound by the same authority to embrace their brethren in Christ with a special affection, yet they were to look upon every man as a brother, to feel a sincere and cordial interest in his welfare, and at meeting to express their benevolence, in language corresponding with the feelings of their hearts. This precept is not inconsistent with the charge which the Prophet Elisha gave to his servant Gehazi, not to salute any man he met, nor return his salutation; for he wished him to make all the haste in his power to restore the child of the Shunamite, who had laid him under so many obligations. The manners of the country rendered Elisha’s precautions particularly proper and necessary, as the salutations of the east often take up a long time. For a similar reason our Lord himself commanded his disciples on one occasion to salute no man by the way: it is not to be supposed that he would require his followers to violate or neglect an innocent custom, still less one of his own precepts; he only directed them to make the best use of their time in executing his work. This precaution was rendered necessary by the length of time which their tedious forms of salutation required. They begin their salutations at a considerable distance, by bringing the hand down to the knees, and then carrying it to the stomach. They express their devotedness to a person by holding down the hand, as they do their affection by raising it afterward to the heart. When they come close together, they take each other by the hand in token of friendship. The country people at meeting clap each other’s hands very smartly twenty or thirty times together, without saying any thing more than, “How do ye do? I wish you good health.” After this first compliment, many other friendly questions about the health of the family, mentioning each of the children distinctly, whose names they know. To avoid this useless waste of time, our Lord commanded them to avoid the customary salutations of those whom they might happen to meet by the way. All the forms of salutation now observed appear to have been in general use in the days of our Lord; for he represents a servant as falling down at the feet of his master, when he had a favour to ask; and an inferior servant, as paying the same compliment to the first, who belonged, it would seem, to a higher class; “The servant, therefore, fell down and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And his fellow servant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all,” Matt. xviii, 26, 29. When Jairus solicited the Saviour to go and heal his daughter, he fell down at his feet: the Apostle Peter, on another occasion, seems to have fallen down at his knees, in the same manner as the modern Arabs fall down at the knees of a superior. The woman who was afflicted with an issue of blood touched the hem of his garment, and the Syro-Phenician woman fell down at his feet. In Persia, the salutation among intimate friends is made by inclining the neck over each other’s neck, and then inclining cheek to cheek; which Mr. Morier thinks is most likely the falling upon the neck and kissing, so frequently mentioned in Scripture, Gen. xxxiii, 4; xlv, 14; Luke xv, 20.

SALVATION imports, in general, some great deliverance from any evil or danger. Thus, the conducting the Israelites through the Red Sea, and delivering them out of the hands of the Egyptians, is called a great salvation. But salvation by way of eminence, is applied to that wonderful deliverance which our blessed Saviour procured for mankind, by saving them from the punishment of their sins; and in the New Testament is the same as our redemption by Christ. This is that salvation referred to by St. Paul: “How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?” The salvation which Christ purchased, and the Gospel tenders to every creature, comprehends the greatest blessings which God can bestow; a deliverance from the most dreadful evils that mankind can suffer. It contains all that can make the nature of man perfect or his life happy, and secures him from whatever can render his condition miserable. The blessings of it are inexpressible, and beyond imagination. “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” For, to be saved as Christ saves, is to have all our innumerable sins and transgressions forgiven and blotted out; all those heavy loads of guilt which oppressed our souls perfectly removed from our minds. It is to be reconciled to God, and restored to his favour, so that he will be no longer angry, terrible, and retributive, but a most kind, compassionate, and tender Father. It is to be at peace with him and with our consciences; to have a title to his peculiar love, care, and protection, all our days; to be rescued from the bondage and dominion of sin, and the tyranny of the devil. It is to be translated from the power of darkness, into the kingdom of Christ; so that sin shall reign no longer in our mortal bodies, but we shall be enabled to serve God in newness of life. It is to be placed in a state of true freedom and liberty, to be no longer under the control of blind passions, and hurried on by our impetuous lusts to do what our reason condemns. It is to have a new principle of life infused into our souls; to have the Holy Spirit resident in our hearts, whose comfortable influence must ever cheer and refresh us, and by whose counsels we may be always advised, directed, and governed. It is to be transformed into the image of God; and to be made like him in wisdom, righteousness, and all other perfections of which man’s nature is capable.

Finally, to be saved as Christ came to save mankind, is to be translated, after this life is ended, into a state of eternal felicity, never more to die or suffer, never more to know pain and sickness, grief and sorrow, labour and weariness, disquiet, or vexation, but to live in perfect peace, freedom, and liberty, and to enjoy the greatest good after the most perfect manner for ever. It is to have our bodies raised again, and reünited to our souls; so that they shall be no longer gross, earthly, corruptible bodies, but spiritual, heavenly, immortal ones, fashioned like unto Christ’s glorious body, in which he now sits at the right hand of God. It is to live in the city of the great King, the heavenly Jerusalem, where the glory of the Lord fills the place with perpetual light and bliss. It is to spend eternity in the most noble and hallowed employments, in viewing and contemplating the wonderful works of God, admiring the wisdom of his providence, adoring his infinite love to the sons of men, reflecting on our own inexpressible happiness, and singing everlasting hymns of praise, joy, and triumph to God and our Lord Jesus Christ for vouchsafing all these blessings. It is to dwell for ever in a place, where no objects of pity or compassion, of anger or envy, of hatred or distrust, are to be found; but where all will increase the happiness of each other, by mutual love and kindness. It is to converse with the most perfect society, to be restored to the fellowship of our friends and relations who have died in the faith of Christ, and to be with Jesus Christ, to behold his glory, to live for ever in seeing and enjoying the great God, in “whose presence is fulness of joy, and at whose right hand are pleasures for evermore.” This is the salvation that Christ has purchased for us; and which his Gospel offers to all mankind.

SAMARIA, one of the three divisions of the Holy Land, having Galilee on the north, Judea on the south, the river Jordan on the east, and the Mediterranean Sea on the west. It took its name from its capital city, Samaria; and formed, together with Galilee and some cantons on the east of Jordan, during the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah, the kingdom of the former. The general aspect and produce of the country are nearly the same as those of Judea. But Mr. Buckingham observes, that “while in Judea the hills are mostly as bare as the imagination can paint them, and a few of the narrow valleys only are fertile, in Samaria, the very summits of the eminences are as well clothed as the sides of them. These, with the luxuriant valleys which they enclose, present scenes of unbroken verdure in almost every point of view, which are delightfully variegated by the picturesque forms of the hills and vales themselves, enriched by the occasional sight of wood and water, in clusters of olive and other trees, and rills and torrents running among them.”

2. SAMARIA, the capital city of the kingdom of the ten tribes that revolted from the house of David. It was built by Omri, king of Israel, who began to reign A. M. 3079, and who died 3086. He bought the hill Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver, or for the sum of 684l. 7_s._ 6_d._ It took the name of Samaria from Shemer, the owner of the hill, 1 Kings xvi, 24. Some think, however, that there were before this some beginnings of a city in that place, because, antecedent to the reign of Omri, there is mention made of Samaria, 1 Kings xiii, 32, A. M. 3030. But others take this for a prolepsis, or an anticipation, in the discourse of the man of God. However this may be, it is certain that Samaria was no considerable place, and did not become the capital of the kingdom, till after the reign of Omri. Before him, the kings of Israel dwelt at Shechem or at Tirzah. Samaria was advantageously situated upon an agreeable and fruitful hill, twelve miles from Dothaim, twelve from Merrom, and four from Atharath. Josephus says it was a day’s journey from Jerusalem. The kings of Samaria omitted nothing to make this city the strongest, the finest, and the richest that was possible. Ahab built there a palace of ivory, 1 Kings xxii, 39; that is, in which there were many ivory ornaments; and, according to Amos, iii, 15; iv, 1, 2, it became the seat of luxury and effeminacy. Benhadad, king of Syria, built public places, called “streets,” in Samaria, 1 Kings xx, 34; probably bazaars for trade, and quarters where his people dwelt to pursue commerce. His son Benhadad besieged this place under the reign of Ahab, 1 Kings xx, A. M. 3103. It was besieged by Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, in the ninth year of the reign of Hoshea, king of Israel, 2 Kings xvii, 6, &c, which was the fourth of Hezekiah, king of Judah. It was taken three years after, A. M. 3283. The Prophet Hosea, x, 4, 8, 9, speaks of the cruelties exercised by Shalmaneser against the besieged; and Micah, i, 6, says that the city was reduced to a heap of stones. The Cuthites that were sent by Esar-haddon to inhabit the country of Samaria did not think it worth their while to repair the ruined city: they dwelt at Shechem, which they made the capital city of their state. They were in this condition when Alexander the Great came into Phenicia and Judea. However, the Cuthites had rebuilt some of the houses of Samaria, even from the time of the return of the Jews from the captivity, since the inhabitants of Samaria are spoken of, Ezra iv, 17; Neh. iv, 2. And the Samaritans, being jealous of the Jews, on account of the favours that Alexander the Great had conferred on them, revolted from him, while he was in Egypt, and burned Andromachus alive, whom he had left governor of Syria. Alexander soon marched against them, took Samaria, and appointed Macedonians to inhabit it, giving the country round it to the Jews; and to encourage them in the cultivation, he exempted them from tribute. The kings of Egypt and Syria, who succeeded Alexander, deprived them of the property of this country. But Alexander Balas, king of Syria, restored to Jonathan Maccabæus the cities of Lydda, Ephrem, and Ramatha, which he cut off from the country of Samaria, 1 Macc. x, 30, 38; xi, 28, 34. Lastly, the Jews reëntered into the full possession of this whole country under John Hircanus, the Asmonean, who took Samaria, and, according to Josephus, made the river run through its ruins. It continued in this state till A. M. 3947, when Aulus Gabinius, the proconsul of Syria, rebuilt it, and gave it the name of Gabiniana. Yet it remained very inconsiderable till Herod the Great restored it to its ancient splendour.

The sacred authors of the New Testament speak but little of Samaria; and when they do mention it, the country is rather to be understood than the city, Luke xvii, 11; John iv, 4, 5. After the death of Stephen, Acts viii, 1, 2, 3, when the disciples were dispersed through the cities of Judea and Samaria, Philip made several converts in this city. There it was that Simon Magus resided, and thither Peter and John went to communicate the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Travellers give the following account of its present state:--Sebaste is the name which Herod gave to the name of the ancient Samaria, the imperial city of the ten tribes, in honour of Augustus (Sebastos) Cæsar, when he rebuilt and fortified it, converting the greater part of it into a citadel, and erecting here a noble temple. “The situation,” says Dr. Richardson, “is extremely beautiful, and strong by nature; more so, I think, than Jerusalem. It stands on a fine, large, insulated hill, compassed all around by a broad deep valley; and when fortified, as it is stated to have been by Herod, one would have imagined that, in the ancient system of warfare, nothing but famine could have reduced such a place. The valley is surrounded by four hills, one on each side, which are cultivated in terraces up to the top, sown with grain, and planted with fig and olive trees, as is also the valley. The hill of Samaria likewise rises in terraces to a height equal to any of the adjoining mountains. The present village is small and poor, and, after passing the valley, the ascent to it is very steep. Viewed from the station of our tents, it is extremely interesting, both from its natural situation, and from the picturesque remains of a ruined convent, of good Gothic architecture. Having passed the village, toward the middle of the first terrace, there is a number of columns still standing. I counted twelve in one row, beside several that stood apart, the brotherless remains of other rows. The situation is extremely delightful, and my guide informed me, that they belonged to the serai, or palace. On the next terrace there are no remains of solid building, but heaps of stone and lime and rubbish mixed with the soil in great profusion. Ascending to the third or highest terrace, the traces of former building were not so numerous, but we enjoyed a delightful view of the surrounding country. The eye passed over the deep valley that encompasses the hill of Sebaste, and rested on the mountains beyond, that retreated as they rose with a gentle slope, and met the view in every direction, like a book laid out for perusal on a reading desk. This was the seat of the capital of the short-lived and wicked kingdom of Israel; and on the face of these mountains the eye surveys the scene of many bloody conflicts and many memorable events. Here those holy men of God, Elijah and Elisha, spoke their tremendous warnings in the ears of their incorrigible rulers, and wrought their miracles in the sight of all the people. From this lofty eminence we descended to the south side of the hill, where we saw the remains of a stately colonnade that stretches along this beautiful exposure from east to west. Sixty columns are still standing in one row. The shafts are plain; and fragments of Ionic volutes, that lie scattered about, testify the order to which they belonged. These are probably the relics of some of the magnificent structures with which Herod the Great adorned Samaria. None of the walls remain.” Mr. Buckingham mentions a current tradition, that the avenue of columns formed a part of Herod’s palace. According to his account, there were eighty-three of these columns erect in 1816, beside others prostrate; all without capitals. Josephus states, that, about the middle of the city, Herod built “a sacred place, of a furlong and a half in circuit, and adorned it with all sorts of decorations; and therein erected a temple, illustrious for both its largeness and beauty.” It is probable that these columns belonged to it. On the eastern side of the same summit are the remains, Mr. Buckingham states, of another building, “of which eight large and eight small columns are still standing, with many others fallen near them. These also are without capitals, and are of a smaller size and of an inferior stone to the others.” “In the walls of the humble dwellings forming the modern village, portions of sculptured blocks of stone are perceived, and even fragments of granite pillars have been worked into the masonry.”

SAMARITANS, an ancient sect among the Jews, still subsisting in some parts of the Levant, under the same name. Its origin was in the time of Rehoboam, under whose reign a division was made of the people of Israel into two distinct kingdoms. One of these kingdoms, called Judah, consisted of such as adhered to Rehoboam and the house of David; the other retained the ancient name of Israelites, under the command of Jeroboam. The capital of the state of these latter was Samaria; and hence it was that they were denominated Samaritans. Some affirm that Salmanazar, king of Assyria, having conquered Samaria, led the whole people captive into the remotest parts of his empire, and filled their places with colonies of Babylonians, Cutheans, and other idolaters. These finding themselves daily destroyed by wild beasts, it is said, desired an Israelitish priest to instruct them in the ancient laws and customs of the land they inhabited. This was granted them; and they thenceforth ceased to be incommoded with any beasts. However, with the law of Moses, they still retained somewhat of their ancient idolatry. The rabbins say, they adored the figure of a dove on Mount Gerizim. As the revolted tribes had no more of the Scriptures than the five books of Moses, so the priest could bring no others with him beside those books written in the old Phenician letters.