Handbook for Bible Students

“S” Entries

Sabbath, Hebrew and Babylonian.—The nearest approach to any resemblance to the Hebrew Sabbath that is to be found in the cuneiform inscriptions is on the so-called calendar of festivals for the intercalary month, Second Elul, and Marchesvan, in which the duties of the shepherd or king are prescribed for the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, twenty-eighth, and nineteenth days. While the other days of the month were regarded as favorable, there were regarded both as favorable and unfavorable. It runs thus: HBS 450.3

“The seventh day is a holy day of Marduk and Sarpânitum, a fortunate day, an evil day. The shepherd of the great nation shall not eat meat roasted by the fire, which is smoked(?), he shall not change his garment, he shall not dress in white, he shall not offer a sacrifice. The king shall not ride in his chariot, the priestess shall not pronounce a divine decision, in a secret place the augur shall not make (an oracle); a physician shall not touch a sick man; (the day) is unsuitable for doing business. The king shall bring his offering at night before Marduk and Ishtar, he shall make an offering; his prayer shall be acceptable to God.” HBS 450.4

This ud-hul-gal, or “evil day,” observed not every seven days, but according to the lunar month, was not a day of rest for the people. As seen, there were some superstitious requirements demanded of the king on that day, but not of the common people. The investigations of Johns show that in the Assyrian period in the eighth and seventh centuries before Christ (720-606), the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days do not show any marked abstention from business transactions. The nineteenth day, however, does. In examining the dated tablets of the first dynasty of Babylon, i. e., the time of Abraham, he concluded that there is a noticeable abstention on these days, but especially on the nineteenth day. Of a total of 356 tablets, the number dated on the first day of the month was 39; on the seventh, only 5; on the fourteenth, 5; on the twenty-first and twenty-eighth, each 8. Considering the month to have thirty days, the average for each day of the month would be 11 and a fraction. HBS 450.5

Johns does not state whether his investigations show that other days besides the first of the month were especially auspicious for business transactions as determined by the dated contracts. If there were, the figures do not prove anything. In the Cassite period the temple archives show that the average amount of business was transacted on those days as well as on the nineteenth. As Johns observes, however, most of the Cassite documents referring to the affairs of the temple may necessitate their being considered from another point of view. In the time of the first dynasty of Babylon and in the Assyrian period, the nineteenth day stands out as one upon which sabbatarian principles as regards the doing of business may have been at least partially observed. It seems it might have been a certain kind of a holy day. HBS 450.6

Besides this hemerology for the intercalary month Elul and Marchesvan, no further light on the subject has been recovered. In the Hammurabi Code of laws, or in fact in the thousands of tablets that have been published, scholars have not been able to find anything beyond what has been discussed, which even by inference would seem to show that the Babylonians observed such a rest every seven days. HBS 451.1

This hemerology, or religious calendar, was found in the library of Ashurbanipal, and, knowing the nature of that library, it is not unreasonable to assume that his scribes, having collected every kind of literature, ancient and modern, found in some section of the country that such a lunar day was observed by officials. Knowing as we do that Israel and Judah were carried to Babylonia and Assyria and placed in captivity, a custom that was practised in all probability for millenniums; and that this gave rise to many communities of Western Semitic peoples in the Euphrates valley, it is not unreasonable to assume that at least in some places, where this element predominated, the Sabbath was observed in much the same manner as it was in Canaan. Knowing also that most of the published contracts of the first dynasty (when, as was noticed by Johns, there was at least a falling off of business transactions on certain days) come largely from a West Semitic center, it is not impossible to see here the results of a West Semitic influence. HBS 451.2

Further, it must be noted that the library of Ashurbanipal belonged to the century following the fall of Samaria and the deportation of Israel, during which century also Tiglath-pileser (745-727 b. c.) took Ijon, Abel-Beth-Maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, and all the land of Naphthali, and carried them captive to Assyria. 2 Kings 15:29. That is, in the century prior to the time the library of Ashurbanipal was gathered, thousands of Palestinian captives were brought to Assyria. This fact makes it altogether reasonable to expect to find some traces of the Hebrew institution. HBS 451.3

Then also it can properly be assumed that other Western Semites besides the Hebrews observed the Sabbath, as, for example, the Aramaans, whence the Hebrews sprung. As there is every indication in the Old Testament that the institution existed prior to Israel, and knowing how for centuries prior to the time of Ashurbanipal the Aramaans and Amorites were the prey of the Eastern kings, we have every reason to expect to find some reflections of the observance of the day even from other than Hebrew sources in that land. HBS 451.4

This much seems to be certain: The Sabbath as a day of rest, observed every seven days, has not been found in the Babylonian literature. While the hemerology of the late Assyrian period has preserved a knowledge of a regulation involving the king and his officials on the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, twenty-eighth, and nineteenth days of two months of the year, which days were regarded as “evil days,” and were to be observed according to certain restrictions in order to appease the gods, it cannot even be justifiably assumed at the present time (except perhaps for the nineteenth day) that there was any cessation from business of any kind or that there was a rest day for the people. HBS 451.5

The very root from which the word is derived, if in use in the Assyro-Babylonian language, is almost unknown, and cannot be shown with our present knowledge to have the meaning “to rest, cease, or desist.” It is only necessary, on the other hand, for one to glance at a dictionary of Hebrew words to be impressed with the widely extended usage of the root shabath, “to cease, desist, rest,” to which the word “Sabbath” belongs. And knowing what this institution was to the Hebrew, as is indicated in all the Old Testament codes-that it was not a day depending upon the lunar month, but was observed every seventh day, although there was in addition the new moon festival which was also a day of rest; and further appreciating how extensive was the legislation concerning it-that it meant not only abstention from daily pursuits, but was a day of consecration, one which the people sanctified by a proper observance; that it was not an austere day for the king, so that the anger of the gods would be appeased, but a day of rest for slave, stranger, and even beast; and that it was an institution without parallel in ancient as well as in modern times, yes, the day par excellence among the Hebrews,-it seems evident, without any elaborate discussion of the question, that the Pan-Babylonists, and others who hold similar views, are mistaken when they find the origin of the institution in Babylonia.—“Amurru, the Home of the Northern Semites,” Albert T. Clay, Ph. D., pp. 57-62. Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Company, 1909. HBS 452.1

Sabbath, The Babylonian.—In reality the Babylonian prohibitions apply to certain classes of people only, and not to the whole population. A study of the contract literature shows that there was no cessation of business upon these days of the month, so that resemblance to the Hebrew Sabbath is really quite slight. HBS 452.2

A Day Called Shabatum.-These days were not, so far as we know, called shabatum, but another tablet tells us that the fifteenth day of each month was so called. Shabatum is etymologically the same as the Hebrew Sabbath. As the Babylonian months were lunar, the fifteenth was the time of the full moon, so that in Babylonian the day denoted the completion of the moon’s growth. In the Old Testament “sabbath” is sometimes coupled with “new moon,” as though it may also have designated a similar day. (See 2 Kings 4:23; Amos 8:5; Hosea 2:11; Isaiah 1:13; 66:23; and Ezekiel 46:3.) This Babylonian shabatum can, in any event, have no direct relationship to the Hebrew Sabbath as a day of rest once a week. HBS 452.3

A Day in Some Tablets at Yale.-A series of tablets in the Yale Babylonian collection, a portion of which has been published by Professor Clay, shows that special sacrifices were offered on the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth of each month. These sacrifices show that these days were thought to have some peculiar significance, but whatever that significance may have been, the evidence cited shows that it was not the same as that of the Hebrew Sabbath.—“Archaology and the Bible,” George A. Barton, Ph. D., LL. D., p. 259. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, copyright 1916. HBS 452.4

Sabbath, The Babylonian.—The next Old Testament institution paralleled on the monuments is the rest day, the Sabbath. “God rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made, and God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it he rested from all his work which God had creatively made.” Genesis 2:3. The Babylonian Sabbath was called “the day of the rest of the heart.” It was not a day of rest for man, but a day on which the gods ceased from their anger, or a day when their anger could be appeased. We possess a religious calendar for two months, the intercalary month Elul and Marcheshvan, in which we find special duties enjoined. The seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days are described as “favorable day, evil day,” and the remainder of the days as “favorable days.” For each day certain measures are prescribed, and on the “favorable-unfavorable” days, certain precautions were to be observed. The king, as one standing nearer the gods than his people, and whose conduct affects his people, is enjoined during the specified five days, not to eat meat roasted on the coals, nor anything that has touched fire; not to array himself in royal robes, nor to offer sacrifices. He was not to mount his chariot, nor to sit in state, nor to enter the sacred dwelling of the gods. No physician was to be called in to serve at the sick-bed; nor was a curse to be invoked on his enemies. The characteristics of the two Sabbaths are: The Babylonian Sabbath was so observed by the king, the representative of his people, as not to stir up the jealousy or anger of the gods; on the Hebrew Sabbath, God rested, and man is likewise to rest from his ordinary labors. HBS 452.5

The Babylonians reckoned their time according to the movements of the moon, and this, of course, divided their lunar month into four weeks of seven days each, corresponding to the four quarters of the moon. The days also were named after the seven planetary deities.—“The Monuments and the Old Testament,” Ira Maurice Price, Ph. D., pp. 85-87. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, copyright 1907. HBS 453.1

Sabbath, Augsburg Confession on Change of.—Besides these things, there is a controversy as to whether bishops or pastors have the power to institute ceremonies in the church, and to make laws concerning meats, holidays, and degrees, or orders of ministers, and so forth. They that ascribe this power to bishops allege this testimony in support of it: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now; but when that Spirit of truth shall come, he shall teach you all truth.” John 16:12, 13. They also allege the examples of the apostles, who commanded to abstain from blood, and that which was strangled. Acts 15:29. They allege the changing of the Sabbath into the Lord’s day, contrary, as it seemeth, to the decalogue; and they have no example more in their mouths than the change of the Sabbath. They will needs have the power to be very great, because it hath done away with a precept of the decalogue. HBS 453.2

But of this question thus do ours teach: that the bishops have not the power to ordain anything contrary to the gospel, as was showed before.—“The Library of Original Sources,” edited by Oliver J. Thatcher, Vol. V, pp. 173, 174. Milwaukee, Wis.: University Research Extension Company, copyright 1907. HBS 453.3

Sacraments.—The name “sacrament” is given to seven sacred Christian rites in the Roman Catholic and Eastern churches, and to two, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, in the Protestant churches. The Greek word mysterion, “mystery,” used in the Eastern Church to designate these rites, is taken from the New Testament, and contains a reference to the hidden virtue behind the outward symbol. The Latin word sacramentum means something that is consecrated, more particularly an oath, especially a military oath of allegiance to the standard; and also the sum of money deposited in court by the plaintiff and defendant previous to the trial of a case, and kept in some sacred place. The term was applied to Christian rites in the time of Tertullian, but cannot be traced further back by any distinct testimony. Jerome translated the Greek word mysterion by sacramentum (Ephesians 1:9; 3:3, 9; 5:32; 1 Timothy 3:16; Revelation 1:20), and from the Vulgate the word “sacrament” passed into the Reims Version in Ephesians 5:32, where marriage is spoken of, and the translation is, “This is a great sacrament.” In other cases the Reims Version retains the word “mystery.” HBS 453.4

The doctrine of the sacraments was not fully developed till the Middle Ages, and the Schoolmen did for it what the church Fathers did for the doctrines of the Trinity and for Christology. With the exception of Augustine, none of the Fathers gave more than passing attention to the definition and doctrine of sacraments; but the Eastern Church held that there were two sacraments, baptism and the eucharist, although later the number seven was accepted. [p. 141] ... HBS 454.1

The first blow against the sacramental system of the medieval church was given by Luther in his “Babylonish Captivity,” in which he declared the rights and liberties of the Christian believer to be fettered by the traditions of men. He rejected all the sacraments except baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and was followed in this by all the Reformers of the continent and Great Britain. All the Protestant confessions demand active faith as a condition of the efficacy of the sacrament. Faith apprehends and appropriates the spiritual benefits accruing from them.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. X, art. “Sacrament,” pp. 141, 143. HBS 454.2

Sacraments, Canons on the.—Canon I. If any one saith that the sacraments of the new law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord; or that they are more or less than seven, to wit: Baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema. [p. 59] ... HBS 454.3

Canon IV. If any one saith that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God through faith alone the grace of justification; though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema. [p. 60] ... HBS 454.4

Canon VI. If any one saith that the sacraments of the new law do not contain the grace which they signify; or that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished among men from unbelievers; let him be anathema.... HBS 454.5

Canon VIII. If any one saith that by the said sacraments of the new law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema. HBS 454.6

Canon IX. If any one saith that in the three sacraments, baptism, to wit, confirmation, and order, there is not imprinted in the soul a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible sign, on account of which they cannot be repeated; let him be anathema.... HBS 454.7

Canon XI. If any one saith that in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the church does; let him be anathema. HBS 454.8

Canon XII. If any one saith that a minister, being in mortal sin,-if so be that he observe all the essentials which belong to the effecting or conferring of the sacrament,-neither effects nor confers the sacrament; let him be anathema.—“Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,” pp. 59-62. New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1912. HBS 454.9

Sacraments, Roman Catholic Definition of.—That the sacraments are among the means of obtaining salvation and righteousness no one can doubt. But although there are many ways that may seem apt and appropriate to explain this matter, none points it out more plainly and clearly than the definition given by St. Augustine, which all scholastic doctors have since followed: “A sacrament,” says he, “is a sign of a sacred thing;” or, as has been said in other words, but to the same purport: “A sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace, instituted for our justification.”-“Catechism of the Council of Trent,” translated by J. Donovan, D. D. (R. C.), p. 127. Dublin: James Duffy, Sons & Co. HBS 454.10

Sacraments, Number of, in the Roman Church.—The sacraments, then, of the Catholic Church are seven, as is proved from the Scriptures, is handed down to us by the tradition of the Fathers, and is testified by the authority of councils. HBS 455.1

But why they are neither more nor less in number may be shown, with some probability, even from the analogy that exists between natural and spiritual life. In order to live, to preserve life, and to contribute to his own and to the public good, these seven things seem necessary to man,-namely, to be born, to grow, to be nurtured, to be cured when sick, to be strengthened when weak; next, as regards the commonwealth, that magistrates, by whose authority and power it may be governed, be never wanting; and, finally, to perpetuate himself and his species by the propagation of legitimate offspring. HBS 455.2

Analogous, then, as all those things obviously are to that life by which the soul lives to God, from them will be easily inferred the number of the sacraments. For the first is baptism, the gate, as it were, to all the rest, by which we are born again to Christ. The next is confirmation, by virtue of which we grow up, and are strengthened in divine grace; for, as St. Augustine bears witness: “To the apostles, who had been already baptized, the Lord said: `Stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high.’” The third is the eucharist, by which, as by a truly celestial food, our spirit is nurtured and sustained; for of it the Saviour has said: “My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” John 6:56 [55]. Penance follows in the fourth place, by the aid of which lost health is restored, after we have received the wounds of sin. The fifth is extreme unction, by which the remains of sin are removed, and the energies of the soul are invigorated; for, speaking of this sacrament, St. James has testified thus: “If he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.” James 5:15. Order follows, by which power is given to exercise perpetually in the church the public ministry of the sacraments, and to perform all the sacred functions. Lastly, is added matrimony, that, by the legitimate and holy union of man and woman, children may be procreated, and religiously brought up to the worship of God, and the conservation of the human race. Ephesians 5:31, sq.—Id., pp. 135, 136. HBS 455.3

Sacraments, Efficacy of, According to Roman Teaching.—A sacrament is defined, by the Catechism of the Council of Trent, to be an outward sign, which, in virtue of the divine ordinance, not only typifies, but works, the supersensual; to wit, holiness and justice.—“Symbolism,” John Adam Moehler, D. D. (R. C.), p. 202, 5th edition. London: Thomas Baker, 1906. HBS 455.4

As regards the mode in which the sacraments confer on us sanctifying grace, the Catholic Church teaches that they work in us, by means of their character, as an institution prepared by Christ for our salvation (ex opere operato, scilicet a Christo, in place of quod operatus est Christus), that is to say, the sacraments convey a divine power, merited for us by Christ, which cannot be produced by any human disposition, by any spiritual effort or condition; but is absolutely, for Christ’s sake, conferred by God through their means.—“Symbolism,” John Adam Moehler, D. D. (R. C.), p. 203, 5th edition. London: Thomas Baker, 1906. HBS 455.5

Sacraments, Luther’s View of.—Of the seven sacraments recognized by that church, he [Luther] recognizes, strictly speaking, only two: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and the connection of this conclusion with the central truth he was asserting is a point of deep interest. Here, too, the one consideration which, in his view, overpowers every other is the supreme import of a promise or word of God. But there are two institutions under the gospel which are distinguished from all others by a visible sign, instituted by Christ himself, as a pledge of the divine promise. A sign so instituted, and with such a purpose, constitutes a peculiarly precious form of those divine promises which are the life of the soul; and for the same reason that the divine word and the divine promise are supreme in all other instances, so must these be supreme and unique among ceremonies. The distinction, by which the two sacraments acknowledged by the Reformed Churches are separated from the remaining five of the Roman Church, was thus no question of names, but of things. It was a question whether a ceremony instituted by Christ’s own command, and embodying his own promise in a visible pledge, could for a moment be put on the same level with ceremonies, however edifying, which had been established solely by the authority or custom of the church. It was of the essence of Luther’s teaching to assert a paramount distinction between these classes of ceremonies, and to elevate the two divine pledges of forgiveness and spiritual life to a height immeasurably superior to all other institutions. He hesitates, indeed, whether to allow an exception in favor of absolution, as conveying undoubtedly a direct promise from Christ; but he finally decides against it, on the ground that it is without any visible and divinely appointed sign, and is after all only an application of the sacrament of baptism.—“Luther’s Primary Works,” Wace and Buchheim, pp. 444, 445. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1896. HBS 456.1

Sacraments, Reformers’ Views of the.—Different as the views of the Reformers at this time still were in regard to the import of the sacraments, and especially of the Lord’s Supper, the leaders of the Refor mation, consistently with their doctrine concerning the Word of God and faith, agreed in maintaining that a mere outward participation in the sacraments was in itself insufficient for salvation; they opposed the doctrine of the opus operatum, and insisted, in this connection as in others, upon the requisiteness of a living faith. In rejecting the sacrifice of the mass as a repetition of Christ’s sacrifice, and in abolishing masses for departed souls, the Reformers acted in harmony, under the influence both of the Scriptural principle, which is ignorant of such sacrificial transactions under the new covenant, and of the material principle of reform, which beholds in the death of Jesus a perfect sacrifice, and regards the forgiveness of sins as dependent on faith in that one offering.—“History of the Reformation,” Dr. K. R. Hagenbach, Vol. II, p. 149. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1879. HBS 456.2

Sadducees.—The probability is that the name is derived from some person named “Zadok.” The most prominent Zadok in history was the Davidic high priest (2 Samuel 8:17; 15:24; 1 Kings 1:35), from whom all succeeding high priests claimed to descend. It is in harmony with this, that in the New Testament the Sadducees are the party to whom the high priests belonged.... Our main authorities for the teaching of the Sadducees are the New Testament and Josephus. According to the former, the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the body, and did not believe in angels or spirits. Matthew 22:23; Acts 23:8. More can be learned from Josephus, but his evidence is to be received with caution, as he was a Pharisee, and, moreover, had the idea that the Sadducees were to be paralleled with the Epicureans. The Talmud is late. Before even the Mishna was committed to writing (c. 200 a. d.) the Sadducees had ceased to exist; before the Gemara was completed (c. 700 a. d.) every valid tradition of their opinions must have vanished.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. IV, art. “Sadducees,” p. 2659. HBS 456.3

Sadducees, Tenets of.—The sect of the Sadducees is by some writers considered as the most ancient of the Jewish sects; though others have supposed that the Sadducees and Pharisees gradually grew up together. This sect derives its appellation from Sadok, or Zadok, the disciple and successor of Antigonus Sochaus, who lived above two hundred (Dr. Prideaux says two hundred and sixty-three) years before Christ; and who taught his pupils to “be not as servants, who wait upon their master for the sake of reward, but to be like servants who wait upon their master, not for the sake of reward,” but that they should let the fear of the Lord be in them. Unable to comprehend a doctrine so spiritual, Sadok deduced from it the inference that neither reward nor punishment is to be expected in a future life. The following are the principal tenets of the Sadducees: HBS 457.1

1. That there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit (Matthew 22:23; Acts 23:8), and that the soul of man perishes together with the body. HBS 457.2

2. That there is no fate or overruling providence, but that all men enjoy the most ample freedom of action; in other words, the absolute power of doing either good or evil, according to their own choice; hence they were very severe judges. HBS 457.3

3. They paid no regard whatever to any tradition, adhering strictly to the letter of Scripture, but preferring the five books of Moses to the rest. [p. 367] ... HBS 457.4

In point of numbers, the Sadducees were an inconsiderable sect; but their numerical deficiency was amply compensated by the dignity and eminence of those who embraced their tenets, and who were persons of the first distinction. Several of them were advanced to the high priesthood. They do not, however, appear to have aspired, generally, to public offices. Josephus affirms that scarcely any business of the state was transacted by them; and that, when they were in the magistracy, they generally conformed to the measures of the Pharisees, though unwilling, and out of pure necessity; for otherwise they would not have been endured by the multitude.—“An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,” Thomas Hartwell Horne, B. D., Vol. III, pp. 367, 368. London: T. Cadell, 1839. HBS 457.5

Samaritans.—In the neighborhood of Samaria was a people who were descended in part from Hebrews whom Sargon did not carry away and in part from the Gentiles whom he brought in. These people worshiped Jehovah. (See 2 Kings 17:24-34.) When the little Jewish state had been re-established at Jerusalem, they wished to participate in Jewish worship and to be recognized as good Jews. Since they were not of pure Hebrew descent, the Jews would not permit this, so they at last desisted, built a temple to Jehovah on Mt. Gerizim (see John 4:20), and became a large and flourishing sect. They based their worship on the Pentateuch, and were so much like the Jews that there was constant friction between them. This friction is reflected in Luke 9:51-54; John 4:9, and in many passages of the Talmud. It was this sect that occupied Samaria in the time of Christ, and made it in his day a distinct division of the country.—“Archaology and the Bible,” George A. Barton, Ph. D., LL. D., pp. 118, 119. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, copyright 1916. HBS 457.6

They [the Samaritans] were descended from an intermixture of the ten tribes with the Gentile nations. This origin rendered them odious to the Jews, who refused to acknowledge them as Jewish citizens, or to permit them to assist in rebuilding the temple, after their return from the Babylonish captivity. In consequence Of this rejection, as well as of other causes of dissension, the Samaritans erected a temple on Mt. Gerizim, and instituted sacrifices according to the prescriptions of the Mosaic law. Hence arose that inveterate schism and enmity between the two nations, so frequently mentioned or alluded to in the New Testament. The Samaritans (who still exist but are greatly reduced in numbers) reject all the sacred books of the Jews except the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses. Of this they preserve copies in the ancient Hebrew characters; which, as there has been no friendly intercourse between them and the Jews since the Babylonish captivity, there can be no doubt were the same that were in use before that event, though subject to such variations as will always be occasioned by frequent transcribing. And so inconsiderable are the variations from our present copies (which were those of the Jews), that by this means we have a proof that these important books have been preserved uncorrupted for the space of nearly three thousand years, so as to leave no room to doubt that they are the same which were actually written by Moses.—“An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,” Thomas Hartwell Horne, B. D., Vol. II, Part I, pp. 42, 43. London: T. Cadell, 1839. HBS 458.1

Sanhedrin.—The Sanhedrin was, at and before the time of Christ, the name for the highest Jewish tribunal, of seventy-one members, in Jerusalem, and also for the lower tribunals, of twenty-three members, of which Jerusalem had two.... In the New Testament the word sometimes, especially when used in the plural (Matthew 10:17; Mark 13:9; Sanh. i, 5), means simply “court of justice,” i. e., any judicatory (Matthew 5:22). But in most cases it is used to designate the supreme Jewish Court of Justice in Jerusalem, in which the process against our Lord was carried on, and before which the apostles (especially Peter and John, Stephen, and Paul) had to justify themselves.... HBS 458.2

There is lack of positive historical information as to the origin of the Sanhedrin. According to Jewish tradition (cf. Sanh. i, 6), it was constituted by Moses (Numbers 11:16-24) and was reorganized by Ezra immediately after the return from exile (fc. the Targum to Cant. 6: 1). But there is no historical evidence to show that previous to the Grecian period there existed an organized aristocratic governing tribunal among the Jews. Its beginning is to be placed at the period in which Asia was convulsed by Alexander the Great and his successors.... The Sanhedrin was abolished after the destruction of Jerusalem (70 a. d.).—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. IV, art. “Sanhedrin,” pp. 2688, 2689. HBS 458.3

Sanhedrin (n?ee×a): Hebrew-Aramaic term originally designating only the assembly at Jerusalem that constituted the highest political magistracy of the country.... In the Talmudic sources the “Great” Sanhedrin at Jerusalem is so called in contradistinction to other bodies designated by that name; and it was generally assumed that this Great Sanhedrin was identical with the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem which is mentioned in the non-Talmudic sources, in the Gospels, and in Josephus. [p. 41] ... HBS 458.4

The Religious Sanhedrin: This body, which met in the hall of hewn stone and was called also “the Great Bet Din” or simply “the Bet Din in the hall of hewn stone” (Tosef., Hor. i, 3; Tosef., Sotah, ix, 1; Yer. Sanh. i, 19c), was invested with the highest religious authority. According to Talmudic tradition it originated in the Mosaic period, the seventy elders who were associated with Moses in the government of Israel at his request (Numbers 11:4-31) forming together with him the first Sanhedrin (Sanh. i, 6). The institution is said to have existed without interruption from that time onward. [p. 43] ... HBS 459.1

After the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem and the downfall of the Jewish state, the Academy of Jabneh was organized as the supreme religious authority, being therefore regarded as the continuation of the Great Bet Din in the hall of hewn stone. The later Jewish academies under the presidency of the patriarchs of the family of Hillel-hence, down to the end of the fourth century-were also regarded as the continuation of that institution. [p. 44]-The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. XI, art. “Sanhedrin,” pp. 41, 43, 44. HBS 459.2

Satan, Doctrine of.—The agency of Satan in the fall of man has been controverted on the plea that, had such been in operation, it ought to have been mentioned. But the absence of any such mention may be explained on the ground that it is not the intention of the holy writers to give any information respecting the existence of the devil, but rather to give an account of his real manifestation, to which, afterward, the doctrine connected itself. The judgment of the reader should not, as it were, be anticipated. The simple fact is communicated to him, in order that, from it, he may form his own opinion. HBS 459.3

Further: it has been asserted that in the entire Old Testament, and until the time of the Babylonian captivity, no trace of an evil spirit is to be found, and that hence it cannot be conceived that his existence is here presupposed. But this assertion may now be regarded as obsolete and without foundation. Closely connected with the affirmation, to which allusion has just been made, is the opinion which assigns the book of Job to the time of the captivity, an opinion which is now almost universally abandoned. [p. 11] ... HBS 459.4

But we must advert to two additional considerations: First, to every one who is in the least familiar with the territory of divine revelation, and who has any conception of the relation in which the books of Moses stand to the whole succeeding revelation, it will, a priori, be inconceivable, that a doctrine which afterward occupies so prominent a position in the revealed books should not have already existed, in the germ at least, in the books of Moses. Secondly, we should altogether lose the origin and foundation of the doctrine concerning Satan, if he be removed from, or explained away in, the history of the fall. That this doctrine cannot by any means be found in the book of Job, has already been pointed out by Hofmann, who remarks in the “Schriftbeweis” (i, S. 378), that Satan appears in this book as a well-known being-as much so as are the sons of God. Nor is Leviticus 16 an appropriate place for the introduction for the first time of this doctrine into the consciousness of the people. The doctrinal essence of the symbolical action there prescribed is this: that Satan, the enemy of the congregation of God, has no power over those who are reconciled to God; that with their sins forgiven by God, they may joyfully appear before, and mock and triumph over, him. The whole ritual must have had in it something altogether strange for the congregation of the Lord, if they had not already known of him (Satan) from some other source. The questions: Who is Asael? What have we to do with him? must have forced themselves upon every one’s mind. It is not the custom of Scripture to introduce its doctrines so abruptly-to prescribe any duty which is destitute of the solid foundation of previous instruction. HBS 459.5

If thus we may consider it as proved: (1) that the serpent was an agent in the temptation, and (2) that it served only as an instrument to Satan,-the real tempter,-than we have also thereby proved that the curse denounced against the tempter must have a double sense. It must, in the first place, refer to the instrument; but, in its chief import, it must bear upon the real tempter, for it was properly he alone who had done that which merited the punishment and the curse. [pp. 13, 14] ... HBS 460.1

The opinion which has been again of late defended by Hofmann and Baumgarten, that the serpent had, before the fall, the same shape as after it,-only that, after the fall, it possesses as a punishment what, before the fall, was its nature-stands plainly opposed to the context. Even, a priori, and in accordance with Satan’s usual mode of proceeding, it is probable that he who loves to transform himself into an angel of light, should have chosen an attractive and charming instrument of temptation. This view loses all that is strange in it, if only we consider the change of the serpent, not as an isolated thing, but in connection with the great change which, after the fall of man, affected the whole nature (comp. Genesis 1:31), according to which the entire animal creation had, previously to the fall, impressed upon it the image of man’s innocence and peace, and the law of destruction did not pervade it (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20); and if only we keep in mind that, before the fall, the whole animal world was essentially different from what it is now-so that we cannot by any means think of forming to ourselves a distinct image of the serpent, as Luther and others have done. HBS 460.2

The serpent is thus, by its disgusting form and by the degradation of its whole being, doomed to be the visible representative of the kingdom of darkness, and of its head, to whom it had served as an instrument. But the words, when applied to the head himself, give expression to the idea: “Extreme contempt, shame, and abasement shall be thy lot.” Thus Calmet remarks on this passage: “This enemy of mankind crawls, as it were, on his belly, on account of the shame and disgrace to which he is reduced.” Satan imagined that, by means of the fall of man, he would enlarge his kingdom, and extend his power. But, to the eye of God, the matter appeared in a totally different light, because, along with the fall, he beheld the redemption. [pp. 15, 16]-“Christology of the Old Testament,” E. W. Hengstenberg, translated by James Martin, B. A., Vol. I, pp. 11-16. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1854. HBS 460.3

Schism, The Great, Protestant View of.—Only once after this period [twelfth century] did a papal schism occur in the Roman Church, and it agitated and shattered the church as no other. Because of its long duration (1378-1429), it was styled the “Great Papal Schism.” After the death of Gregory XI, 1378, who had restored the papal residence to Rome, the sixteen cardinals then present in Rome elected, April 8, Archbishop Bartholomew of Bari as Pope Urban VI. However, he had embittered some of the cardinals through gross harshness and indiscriminate censure of prevalent abuses in the college of cardinals and in the Curia. Therefore a quota of cardinals, thirteen in number, who had betaken themselves to Avignon, elected, September 20, Cardinal Robert of Geneva as Pope Clement VII, affirming that the election of Urban VI was invalid on account of the coercion brought to bear against them by the population of Rome. In Italy, nevertheless, public sentiment continued overwhelmingly in favor of Urban VI, while Germany, England, Denmark, and Sweden also sided with him. On the other hand, Clement VII soon became acknowledged by France; and after he had transferred his residence to Avignon, French influence also contrived to draw Scotland, Savoy, and later Castile, Aragon, and Navarre to his cause. Thus two popes were arrayed one against the other. Each had his own college of cardinals, thus affording a protraction of the schism by means of new papal elections. Urban VI was followed by Boniface IX (1389-1404); Innocent VIII (1404-06); and Gregory XII (1406-15). After Clement VII, in 1394, came Benedict XIII. HBS 460.4

The Papacy having shown itself incapable of abating the schism, the only expedient was the convening of a general council. This assembled at Pisa, in 1408, and the delegates sat from the start in common accord. Though the council deposed both Gregory XII and Benedict XIII, and elected in their place Alexander V, who was succeeded in 1410 by John XXIII, this procedure failed to stop the schism. The two former popes asserted themselves so that the church now had three popes. The futility of the Council of Pisa led to the convocation of the Council of Constance (1414-18). In 1415 this declared that, as representative organ of the ecumenical church, it possessed the supreme ecclesiastical authority, and every one, even the Pope, must yield obedience. In the same year, accordingly, it deposed John XXIII, and again declared Benedict XIII as a schismatic to have forfeited his right to the papal see. With the election of Martin V, which took place Nov. 11, 1417, by action of the duly appointed conciliar deputation, the schism was practically terminated, though not absolutely ended until 1429; for Benedict XIII, though almost wholly forsaken, defied the sentence of deposition as long as he lived (d. 1424); and Canon Agidius Munoz of Barcelona, whom the few cardinals that lingered with Benedict elected as Clement VIII, did not relinquish his dignity until five years after.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. X, art. “Schism,” pp. 238, 239. HBS 461.1

Schism, The Great, Roman Catholic View of.—The Western Schism was only a temporary misunderstanding, even though it compelled the church for forty years to seek its true head; it was fed by politics and passions, and was terminated by the assembling of the Councils of Pisa and Constance.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, art. “Schism,” p. 539. HBS 461.2

Schism, The Great, Effects of.—But, at any rate, this much can be said in palliation, that all these disputes were settled somehow; and, right or wrong, one pope always obtained final recognition, except in the schism of 1046, when three rival popes were all set aside, and a new one, Clement II, appointed. Not so when we come to the “Great Schism,” which broke out in 1378, after the death of Gregory XI, and lasted till 1409, or rather till 1417. It is needless to go into the details of this prolonged strife, and it will be enough to say that during its continuance there were two (and sometimes three) rival lines of pontiffs kept up, severally followed by whole nations on entirely political, not theological, grounds, and that no one can say now which claimant at any time was the true Pope; while canonized saints were found on opposite sides of the question, St. Catharine of Siena, for instance, holding to the Italian succession, and St. Vincent Ferrer to the competing line; so that St. Antoninus of Florence has remarked that persons illustrious for miracles took opposite sides in the controversy, and that the question cannot be settled now. Since this “Great Schism,“ whose lessons were severe, only one anti-pope, Felix V, is on record.—“Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome,” Richard Frederick Littledale, LL. D., D. C. L., pp. 194, 195. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1905. HBS 461.3

Schism, The Great, Consequences of.—Hardly had the first storm which assailed the Papacy during the long residence of the popes at Avignon [1309-1378), depriving it of its political supremacy, passed away, when a new storm broke over its head, depriving it of still more of its greatness, and nearly obliterating its existence altogether. This time the storm was not occasioned by a residence in a foreign country, which brought the popes into political dependence on a foreign sovereign; but it was a storm gathered in a purely ecclesiastical atmosphere, and hence inflicting damage on another side of the Papacy-the ecclesiastical independence of the popes. It was, in short, no other event than that known as the Great Schism of the West [1378-1417]. Of that event the disastrous effects were far-reaching and widespread. The shock which the Schism itself produced on the minds of the clergy and the laity was but small part of the result; and most momentous were its after-consequences. For that Schism called into being those independent councils of the West, which rudely assailed the sovereign Pontiff; during that Schism, too, those abuses became rife which called forth on a large scale, though not for the first time, the demand for reform, and thus hastened on the event which involved the Papacy in ruin.—“The See of Rome in the Middle Ages,” Rev. Oswald J. Reichel, B. C. L., M. A., pp. 439, 440. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1870. HBS 462.1

Sect.—Sect is in the New Testament the translation of hairesis, from hairéô, “to take,” “to choose;” also translated “heresy,” not heresy in the later ecclesiastical sense, but a school or party, a sect, without any bad meaning attached to it. The word is applied to schools of philosophy; to the Pharisees and Sadducees among the Jews who adhered to a common religious faith and worship; and to the Christians.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. IV, art. “Sect,” p. 2711. HBS 462.2

Sennacherib’s Report of Campaign Against Hezekiah.—“Because Hezekiah, king of Judah,” says the Assyrian monarch, “would not submit to my yoke, I came up against him, and by force of arms and by the might of my power I took forty-six of his strong fenced cities; and of the smaller towns which were scattered about I took and plundered a countless number. And from these places I captured and carried off as spoil 200,150 people, old and young, male and female, together with horses and mares, asses and camels, oxen and sheep, a countless multitude. And Hezekiah himself I shut up in Jerusalem, his capital city, like a bird in a cage, building towers round the city to hem him in, and raising banks of earth against the gates, so as to prevent escape.... HBS 462.3

“Then upon this Hezekiah there fell the fear of the power of my arms, and he sent out to me the chiefs and the elders of Jerusalem with thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver, and divers treasures, a rich and immense booty.... All these things were brought to me at Nineveh, the seat of my government, Hezekiah having sent them by way of tribute, and as a token of his submission to my power.”-“The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World,” George Rawlinson, M. A., Vol. II, pp. 161, 162. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. HBS 462.4

And Hezekiah, king of Judah, who had not bowed down at my feet, forty-six of his strong cities, his castles, and the smaller towns in their neighborhood beyond number, with warlike engines ... I attacked and captured. Two hundred thousand one hundred and fifty people, small and great, male and female, horses, mares, asses, camels, oxen, and sheep beyond number, for the midst of them I carried off and distributed them as spoil. He himself, like a bird in a cage, inside Jerusalem his royal city, I shut him up: siege towers against him I constructed (for he had given command to renew the bulwarks of the great gate of his city). His cities which I plundered, from his kingdom I cut off, and to Mitinti king of Ashdod, Padiah king of Ekron, and Zilli-bel king of Gaza I gave them. I diminished his kingdom. Beyond the former scale of their yearly gifts their tribute and gifts to my Majesty I augmented and imposed upon them. He himself Hezekiah, the fearful splendor of my Majesty had overwhelmed him. The workmen, soldiers, and builders whom for the fortification of Jerusalem his royal city he had collected within it, now carried tribute and with thirty talents of gold, 800 talents of silver; woven cloth, scarlet, embroidered; precious stones of large size; couches of ivory, movable thrones of ivory, skins of buffaloes, teeth of buffaloes, dan wood, ku wood, a great treasure of every kind, and his daughters, and the male and female inmates of his palace, male slaves and female slaves, unto Nineveh my royal city after me he sent; to pay tribute and do homage he sent his envoy.—“The Library of Original Sources,” edited by Oliver J. Thatcher, Vol. I, pp. 417, 418. Milwaukee, Wis.: University Research Extension Company, copyright 1907. HBS 462.5

Sennacherib, Death of.—A cylinder recently acquired (1910) by and now in the British Museum, states: “On the twentieth day of the month Tebet (Dec.), Sennacherib, king of Assyria, his son slew him in a rebellion.” The rebellion (it says) lasted till the twenty-eighth of Sivan (June) of next year, “when Esarhaddon his son sat on the throne of Assyria.”-“The Companion Bible,” Part II, “Joshua to Job,” p. 520. London: Oxford University Press. HBS 463.1

Servetus, Calvin’s Responsibility for the Burning of.—Calvin’s influence in Geneva amounted to less during the trial of Servetus than at any other time, and it is therefore absolutely unhistorical to represent Calvin as the chief figure in the proceedings against the Spaniard. After the arrest and arraignment of Servetus, the process took its course according to law, and Calvin was simply an important witness and instrument in the case. After the trial had ended, Calvin did everything in his power to effect a commutation of the horrible sentence, but without avail, for neither Servetus nor the city authorities would yield a single step. Stähelin says it may sound paradoxical, but is nevertheless true, that Rome is responsible also for the Protestant stakes and scaffolds, because for centuries it inculcated principles and practices among Christians, in relation to heresy, which emanated from a world view whose sole object was dominion, unity, uniformity, conformity, and ownership of conscience. HBS 463.2

The Reformers could not at once free themselves from the aims and influence of ecclesiastical power under which they grew up, and which controlled them to an amazing degree, in spite of all the light they had attained through the new learning and from the Scriptures. To us the thought that any one should be burned to death for opinion’s sake is horrifying, and our sense of justice and freedom is outraged by the crime itself. It is to be deplored that Servetus died through such causes, under such circumstances, and in the midst of such surroundings. It is impossible to change men’s minds, ideas, or opinions by mutilations and burnings. A man may be frightened into a recantation by the horror of such a punishment, but he cannot thus be forced to erase his mental impressions, and alter an inwrought temperament or disposition. By the threatened torture he is merely terrorized into telling a lie, into being untrue to himself, however mistaken, at bottom, he may be in his fancies and contentions. HBS 463.3

Both Catholics and Protestants looked upon Servetus as we look upon the anarchist. There existed a confused overlapping and intermingling of the functions of church and state, which men since then, in the onward march of liberty, have cleared away. The Greeks poisoned Socrates, the philosopher of the conscience, because they imagined that he corrupted the youth of Athens. Brutus and his friends slew Julius Casar, the idol of the populace, because he was ambitious. Jews and Romans crucified Jesus of Nazareth, the Saviour of the world, because he made himself equal with God and founded a new kingdom. The pagan emperors hurled the early followers of Jesus to the lions in the arena, and tortured them to death by thousands, because in that kingdom they found eternal life. The Roman Catholics and the emperor Sigismund, by an act of the Council of Constance, burned John Huss and Jerome of Prague because they tried to purify the church. For similar reasons blood flowed in Paris on St. Bartholomew’s night, the fires were lighted on Smithfield Common, and Philip II declared war against the Netherlands. And finally Servetus suffered death at the stake in Protestant Geneva because he blasphemed the holy Trinity and befriended the seditious Libertines. But men ought to cease to make a mockery of historic fact by blaming this terrible deed solely and alone upon the Genevan Reformer, John Calvin, who imperiled his own life to defend the eternal Sonship of Jesus.—“Modernism and the Reformation,” John Benjamin Rust, Ph. D., D. D., pp. 139-141. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. HBS 464.1

Be the matter twisted and turned as it may, the burning of Servetus will ever remain a dark spot on the history of the Reformation, and in the life of Calvin. We must not, however, charge on Calvin the whole odium of an act in which he was supported by the age in which he lived, or at least by a large proportion of its representative men. How many Anabaptists were beheaded and drowned in the age of the Reformation, whom no one ever thinks of mentioning! Why is it that the execution of Servetus alone is always harped upon as a misdeed of Calvin’s? Possibly, because the horrible manner of his death serves, more than any other, to recall the horrors of the Inquisition, and the executions of Huss and Savonarola. And moreover, Calvin’s personal participation in the details of the process appears in a manner so conspicuous as to enable us to understand how the antipathy of later generations to such bloody judgments upon heretics became connected, more closely than is consistent with justice, with a previously existent antipathy to the harsh and awe-inspiring character of the Genevese Reformer.—“History of the Reformation,” Dr. K. R. Hagenbach, Vol. II, p. 340. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1879. HBS 464.2

Siloam Inscription.—In the summer of 1880, one of the native pupils of Mr. Schick, a German architect long settled in Jerusalem, was playing with some other lads in the so-called Pool of Siloam, and while wading up a channel cut in the rock which leads into the Pool, slipped and fell into the water. On rising to the surface, he noticed what looked like letters on the rock which formed the southern wall of the channel. He told Mr. Schick of what he had seen; and the latter, on visiting the spot, found that an ancient inscription, concealed for the most part by the water, actually existed there. [p. 80] ... HBS 464.3

The inscription occupies the under part of an artificial tablet in the wall of rock, about nineteen feet from where the conduit opens out upon the Pool of Siloam, and on the right-hand side of one who enters it. After lowering the level of the water, Mr. Schick endeavored to take a copy of it; but, as not only the letters of the text, but every flaw in the rock were filled with a deposit of lime left by the water, all he could send to Europe was a collection of unmeaning scrawls. Besides the difficulty of distinguishing the letters, it was also necessary to sit in the mud and water, and to work by the dim light of a candle, as the place where the inscription is engraved is perfectly dark. All this rendered it impossible for any one not acquainted with Phonician palaography to make an accurate transcript. The first intelligible copy accordingly was made by Professor Sayce after several hours of careful study; but this too contained several doubtful characters, the real forms of which could only be determined by the removal of the calcareous matter with which they were coated. In March, 1881, six weeks after Sayce’s visit, Dr. Guthe arrived in Jerusalem, and after making a more complete facsimile of the inscription than had previously been possible, removed the deposit of lime by means of an acid, and so revealed the original appearance of the tablet. Letters which had previously been concealed now became visible, and the exact shapes of them all could be observed. First a cast, and then squeezes of the text were taken; and the scholars of Europe had at last in their hands an exact copy of the old text. [p. 81] ... HBS 465.1

It is most unfortunate that the inscription contains no indication of date; but the forms of the letters used in it show that it cannot be very much later in age than the Moabite Stone. Indeed, some of the letters exhibit older forms than those of the Moabite Stone; but this may be explained by the supposition that the scribes of Jerusalem were more conservative, more disposed to retain old forms, than the scribes of King Mesha. The prevalent opinion of scholars is that the tunnel and consequently the inscription in it were executed in the reign of Hezekiah. According to the Chronicler (2 Chronicles 32:30), Hezekiah “stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David;” and we read in 2 Kings 20:20, that “he made a pool and a conduit, and brought water into the city.” The object of the laborious undertaking is very plain. The Virgin’s Spring, the only natural source near Jerusalem, lay outside the walls, and in time of war might easily pass into the hands of the enemy. The Jewish kings, therefore, did their best to seal up this spring, which must be the Chronicler’s “upper watercourse of Gihon,” and to bring its waters by subterranean passages inside the city walls. Besides the tunnel which contains the inscription, another tunnel has been discovered, which also communicates with the Virgin’s Spring. But it is tempting to suppose that the most important of these-the tunnel which contains the inscription-must be the one which Hezekiah made. HBS 465.2

The supposition, however, is rendered uncertain by a statement of Isaiah 8:6. While Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, was still reigning, Isaiah uttered a prophecy in which he made allusion to “the waters of Shiloah that go softly.” Now this can hardly refer to anything else than the gently flowing stream which still runs through the tunnel of Siloam. In this case the conduit would have been in existence before the time of Hezekiah; and since we know of no earlier period when a great engineering work of the kind could have been executed until we go back to the reign of Solomon, it is possible that the inscription may actually be of this ancient date. The inference is supported by the name Shiloah, which probably means “the tunnel,” and would have been given to the locality in consequence of the conduit which here pierced the rock. It was not likely that when David and Solomon were fortifying Jerusalem, and employing Phonician architects upon great public buildings there, they would have allowed the city to depend wholly upon rain cisterns for its water supply. [pp. 82-84]-“Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,” A. H. Sayce, M. A., pp. 80-84. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1890. HBS 465.3

Sodom and Gomorrah, Overthrow of.—An Accadian poem describing the rain of fire which destroyed these cities, and the escape of Lot, as described in Genesis. (Translated by Rev. A. H. Sayce from tablets in the British Museum.) HBS 466.1

An overthrow from the midst of the deep there came. The fated punishment from the midst of heaven descended. A storm like a plummet the earth (overwhelmed). To the four winds the destroying flood like fire did burn. The inhabitants of the citie(s) it had caused to be tormented; their bodies it consumed. In city and country it spread death, and the flames as they rose overthrew. Freeman and slave were equal, and the high places it filled. In heaven and earth like a thunder-storm it had rained; a prey it made. A place of refuge the gods hastened to, and in a throng collected. Its mighty (onset) they fled from, and like a garment it concealed (mankind). They (feared), and death (overtook them). HBS 466.2

(Their) feet and hands (it embraced).... Their body it consumed ... the city, its foundations it defiled.... in breath, his mouth he filled. As for this man, a loud voice was raised; the mighty lightning flash descended. During the day it flashed; grievously (it fell)....—“The Library of Original Sources,” edited by Oliver J. Thatcher, Vol. I, pp. 434, 435. Milwaukee, Wis.: University Research Extension Company, copyright 1907. HBS 466.3

Soul, Living, Meaning of the Term.—The expression “living soul,” as used in Genesis, is often taken to indicate an order of being superior to the brute, and is the text of many an argument to prove the immortality of the soul. The incorrectness of this assumption will be readily seen by referring to Genesis 1:20, 21, 24, and elsewhere, in which passages the words translated “living soul” are applied also to the entire lower creation. They are used indifferently of man and beast to express animal life in general; and it is in this light that the apostle uses them, as the very course of his argument shows. Adam is spoken of as a living soul, not to prove his immortality, but rather his mortality. It is by means of the soul that he and all descended from him, are linked to this changing and corruptible world, and so become the heirs of corruption. The only superiority ascribed to man in the history of creation, is found in the fact that “God breathed into him the breath of life,” and in this it is intimated that in the act of becoming a living soul, man at the same time was endowed with higher capacities, which brought him into relationship with God, and made him capable of communing with him, and so of rising to a spiritual existence. But the possibilities here involved for leading a true spiritual life, could only be carried out by his abiding in fellowship with God and partaking of the divine Spirit. And had this been maintained by obedience, there is every reason to believe that the higher life of the spirit would have glorified the lower and made it partaker of immortality without the intervention of death. But by reason of the fall, this possibility was cut off, and man becoming animal ([Greek word] [psuchikos]), or as our version renders it “natural,” in the very elements of his character, or in the springs of his existence, became at the same time mortal. Herein lay the necessity for the new creation through the intervention of a Redeemer who shall be nothing less than a quickening spirit.—“The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians,” Christian Friedrich Kling, translated by Daniel W. Poor, D. D., p. 339, 4th edition. New York: Charles Scribner & Co., 1870. HBS 466.4

Stephen, Time of Death of.—Up to the time of the martyrdom of Stephen, the gospel met with considerable success among the Jews at Jerusalem, both among those resident there and those who visited it during that period. Our first inquiry then is, What was the date of Stephen’s martyrdom? And here, as in all such cases where Scripture is not explicit on the subject, the early Christian writers vary widely from each other. The martyrdom of Stephen is placed by them at different periods, varying from less than a year after our Lord’s crucifixion, to seven years after it. Both these extremes are evidently erroneous. The former has, perhaps, arisen from the martyrdom of Stephen having taken place at a period of the year about eight or nine months after that in which the crucifixion took place. But it is clear that the events recorded in the Acts as having preceded the martyrdom of Stephen, could not have taken place within this space of time. The proceedings of the apostles, as narrated in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chapters, must have taken up some little time. Subsequent to these, we read of the disciples’ selling their lands and bringing the money to the apostles, not only those dwelling at Jerusalem, but those who belonged to other countries; which certainly would require some time. Then we hear of a series of miracles being performed, and of the addition from time to time of great multitudes of believers in the Christian faith, until the high priest and his followers became alarmed for the result. Acts 5. Then we find that a time came when the disciples were so far organized into a distinct body, that there was a system of daily ministration established for the widows among them (ch. 6:1, 2); and seven men, one of whom is Stephen, are appointed to attend to this matter. After this appointment, we are told of a great increase taking place in the number of the disciples (6:7), which we must suppose to have required a little time. Then we read of Stephen doing great wonders and miracles among the people (6:8), and carrying on his disputations against opponents with such success as to stir up a bitter spirit against himself, and to induce them to accuse him before the council; all which must have occupied some time. HBS 467.1

Now, if we endeavor to calculate the probable time occupied by all these events, we are making, I think, a moderate estimate of its length when we say that it must have been at least three years and a half, and probably rather more. HBS 467.2

And that the martyrdom of Stephen took place three years after the crucifixion, is stated by Syncellus in his Chronicle, and others of the ancients. HBS 467.3

A probable confirmation of this date for the martyrdom of Stephen may be gained from the period about which St. Paul’s conversion on his journey to Damascus must have taken place. From his own statements in his epistles, compared with the notices respecting him in the Acts, it seems probable that his conversion took place about a. d. 36, and certainly not before a. d. 35. And if we inspect the account given in the Acts of what took place between the martyrdom of Stephen and the conversion of St. Paul, we can hardly suppose it to have been more than two years. HBS 467.4

Bishop Pearson thinks that Stephen was martyred a. d. 34, and Paul converted on his journey to Damascus at the close of a. d. 35. And this I believe to be the true date. HBS 467.5

And as it respects the date of St. Paul’s journey to Damascus it is not improbable that it might take place upon the removal of Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea, which event happened about the autumn of a. d. 35, the chief priests being then better able to give authority to Paul to go to Damascus on his errand of persecution. HBS 468.1

I incline, therefore, to the supposition that the seven years of mercy for establishing the covenant with many of the Jews terminated about the time of Stephen’s martyrdom, which in all probability was in December, a. d. 33, or January, a. d. 34.—“Fulfilled Prophecy,” Rev. W. Goode, D. D., F. S. A., pp. 234, 235, 2nd edition. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1891. HBS 468.2

Sunday, Roman Laws Concerning.—Let the course of all lawsuits and all business cease on Sunday, which our fathers have rightly called the Lord’s day, and let no one try to collect either a public or a private debt; and let there be no hearing of disputes by any judges either those required to serve by law or those voluntarily chosen by disputants. And he is to be held not only infamous but sacrilegious who has turned away from the service and observance of holy religion on that day.—Codex Theodosianus, XI, 7, 13. Time of Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius. HBS 468.3

On the Lord’s day, which is the first day of the week, on Christmas, and on the days of Epiphany, Easter, and Pentecost, inasmuch as then the (white) garments (of Christians) symbolizing the light of heavenly cleansing bear witness to the new light of holy baptism, at the time also of the suffering of the apostles, the example for all Christians, the pleasures of the theaters and games are to be kept from the people in all cities, and all the thoughts of Christians and believers are to be occupied with the worship of God. And if any are kept from that worship through the madness of Jewish impiety or the error and insanity of foolish paganism, let them know that there is one time for prayer and another for pleasure. And lest any one should think he is compelled by the honor due to our person, as if by the greater necessity of his imperial office, or that unless he attempted to hold the games in contempt of the religious prohibition, he might offend our serenity in showing less than the usual devotion toward us; let no one doubt that our clemency is revered in the highest degree by humankind when the worship of the whole world is paid to the might and goodness of God.—Codex Theod., XV, 5. Time of Emperors Theodosius and Casar Valentinian.—“The Library of Original Sources,” edited by Oliver J. Thatcher, Vol. IV, pp. 69, 70. Milwaukee, Wis.: University Research Extension Company, copyright 1907. HBS 468.4

We desire that all the people under the rule of our clemency should live by that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the Romans, and which it is evident that Pope Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, followed; that is that we should believe in the one deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with equal majesty and in the Holy Trinity according to the apostolic teaching and the authority of the gospel.—Cod. Theod., XVI, 1, 2. Time of Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius. HBS 468.5

It is necessary that the privileges which are bestowed for the cultivation of religion should be given only to followers of the Catholic faith. We desire that heretics and schismatics be not only kept from these privileges, but be subjected to various fines.—Cod. Theod., XVI, 5, 1. Time of Emperor Constantine.—Id., p. 70. HBS 468.6

Syllabus of Errors, Extracts from.—[The encyclical Quanta Cura, published by Pope Pius IX, Dec. 8, 1864, was accompanied by a syllabus containing a summary in eighty propositions of various doctrines condemned by that Pontiff. These propositions were based upon excathedrâ documents put out by the same Pope at various times during his pontificate. HBS 469.1

In reading this document it should be remembered that every proposition is from the Roman Catholic standpoint an error. In his book, “Der Papst und die Modernen Ideen” (Vienna, 1865), the Jesuit Schrader changes these liberal statements condemned in the Syllabus into the orthodox form by putting those which the church would assert as opposed to those condemned. For example, according to Schrader, proposition 55 reads thus: “The church is neither to be separated from the state nor the state from the church.” This is the Roman Catholic view on the relationship of church and state. The other propositions are similarly handled by Schrader. It is therefore legitimate to conclude in a general way that the Roman Catholic Church teaches the very opposite of the error condemned in every one of these propositions. HBS 469.2

Different Roman Catholic writers of considerable standing take varying views upon the authority of this Syllabus of Errors. Two brief quotations will illustrate this. Charles Coupe, S. J., writing on “The Temporal Power,” in the American Catholic Quarterly Review, October, 1901, asserts that “the Syllabus, if not formally, is at any rate practically infallible.” In contrast with this is the statement of John Henry Newman, the celebrated English convert to Romanism, who in his “Letter to the Duke of Norfolk” (pages 79, 80) says: “The Syllabus is not an official act, because it is not signed, for instance ‘Datum Roma [given at Rome], Pius P. P. IX,’ or ‘sub annulo Piscatoris [under the ring of the fisherman],’ or in some other way; it is not a personal, for he does not address his ‘Venerabiles Fratres [venerable brethren]’ or ‘Dilecto Filio [beloved son],’ or speak as ‘Pius Episcopus [Pius Bishop];’ it is not immediate, for it comes to the bishop only through the cardinal minister of state.... The Syllabus makes no claim to be acknowledged as the word of the Pope.” HBS 469.3

The Syllabus is generally acknowledged to be a document of great authority, and is doubtless regarded as infallible by the ultramontane partisans. We translate the following articles from it.—Editors.] HBS 469.4

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he shall believe true, guided by the light of reason. HBS 469.5

17. We may entertain at least a well-founded hope for the eternal salvation of all those who are in no manner in the true church of Christ. HBS 469.6

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which it is possible to be equally pleasing to God as in the Catholic Church. HBS 469.7

21. The church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion. HBS 469.8

23. The Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have exceeded the limits of their power, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even committed errors in defining matters of faith and morals. HBS 469.9

24. The church has not the power of availing herself of force, or any direct or indirect temporal power. HBS 469.10

27. The ministers of the church, and the Roman Pontiff, ought to be absolutely excluded from all charge and dominion over temporal affairs. HBS 469.11

30. The immunity of the church and of ecclesiastical persons derives its origin from civil law. HBS 469.12

31. Ecclesiastical courts for temporal causes, of the clergy, whether civil or criminal, ought by all means to be abolished, even without the concurrence and against the protest of the holy see. HBS 469.13

37. National churches can be established, after being withdrawn and plainly separated from the authority of the Roman Pontiff. HBS 470.1

38. Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the church into Eastern and Western. HBS 470.2

39. The commonwealth is the origin and source of all rights, and possesses rights which are not circumscribed by any limits. HBS 470.3

40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is opposed to the well-being and interests of society. HBS 470.4

45. The entire direction of public schools, in which the youth of Christian states are educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and must appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the taking of degrees, or the choice and approval of the teachers. HBS 470.5

47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to the children of all classes, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophy, and for conducting the education of the young, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, government, and interference, and should be fully subject to the civil and political power, in conformity with the will of rulers and the prevalent opinions of the age. HBS 470.6

55. The church ought to be separated from the state, and the state from the church. HBS 470.7

77. In the present day, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion shall be held as the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship. HBS 470.8

78. Whence it has been wisely provided by law, in some countries called Catholic, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own worship. HBS 470.9

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every mode of worship, and the full power given to all of overtly and publicly manifesting their opinions and their ideas, of all kinds whatsoever, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to the propagation of the pest of indifferentism. HBS 470.10

80. The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to, and agree with, progress, liberalism, and civilization as lately introduced. HBS 470.11

Note.—The eighty propositions in the original Latin are found in the “Theologia Moralis” of Ligorio, Vol. II, pp. 454-461, 3rd edition.—Eds. HBS 470.12