The Passover was a complete sacrifice, for the blood was poured out and sprinkled, in which ceremony consisted the essence of sacrifice; and the fat and inward parts were consumed on the altar, after the regular establishment of the Law of Moses; though at its first institution in Egypt, the Israelites having no altars, that rite was necessarily omitted. This type received its fulfilment in Christ: "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the feast." (1Cor. 5. 7.) These bloody sacrifices are all that can with strict propriety be classed as sacrifices; the unbloody, not being victims, were not properly sacrifices, but offerings and oblations. I. Public; such as the wave-sheaf of the first fruits of harvest, (Levit. 23. 10;) the shew-bread presented on the Lord's table every Sabbath, (Levit. 25;) incense, offered morning and evening on the golden altar, on which no bloody sacrifice was ever presented. (Exod. 30. 7,8.) See Psalm 160. 1: "Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense."-II. Private; such as the offering of barley-meal, in case of jealousy, (Numb. 5. 11;) this, and the wave-sheaf, were the only offerings in which barley was used. The priest's offering of a cake, at his consecration, (Levit. 6. 20;) the offering of the first fruits; of fruits, (Deut. 26. 2,) of animals, (Numb. 18,) of sheep's wool for the Levites, of wine, of oil, (Levit. 18. 4.) of these first fruits, it may be observed, that the first-born of men, who could not of course be offered up, were to be redeemed with money; but the firstlings of unclean beasts, with a lamb, which being sacrificed, is to be included among the bloody sacrifices. Of the wool, no quantity was specified by law; a man might bring what he chose; a small and penurious offering was called an oblation with an evil eye; a large and liberal, an oblation with a good eye. To this it has been thought Our Saviour alludes, (Matt. 20. 15,) "Is thine eye evil, because I am good?" There were also the offerings of the tenths, of corn, wine, oil, calves, goats and lambs. It remains to be observed, that waveofferings were waved to and fro, to signify the extent of God's providence everywhere; and heave-offerings were lifted up, to signify that they were dedicated to heaven. If a man, living far from Jerusalem, incurred the necessity of making a sin-offering, the Jewish doctors it was permitted him to defer it till the next grand festival, when all were obliged to appear at the Temple. If a person under obligation to offer any of the sacrifices obstinately and contumaciously refused, the penalty denounced was "cutting off" from the people.

say

After the coming of Christ, who was the object and fulfilment of the sacrifices, the types naturally ceased. And though the Jews in unbelief would willingly have continued them, they were overruled, and forced by events to relinquish them. During the siege of Jerusalem, the daily sacrifice ceased for want of lambs; and after the destruction of the Temple the sacrificial rites of necessity ceased, for want of a legal place to perform them at. Even the Passover is thus reduced to a mere shadow, the representation of a sacrifice, but deficient in all its striking and material points. The lamb is no longer sacrificially slain and roasted whole, and thus served up, but is represented by a small bit of lamb, or kid, or generally only the shoulder-bone in a dish.

The only vestige of bloody sacrifice retained by the Jews of later times, was the killing of a cock on the day of expiation. The bird was chosen white; red was avoided, because it was thought to be the colour of sin. (Isai. 1. 18,) "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow." The master of the house standing in the midst of his family, held the cock, and repeated Psalm 10. 10,13,14,17 to 22d verse'; and Job 33. 23,24. Then he struck his head with the cock

1171

thrice, "This cock shall stand in my place, and be expiation for me; death be to him; but to me and all Israel a prosperous life. Amen." Then laying his hands on the cock, he killed it, first twisting tightly the skin of its neck, to show the transgressor ought to be strangled; then cut its throat to express violent death by knife or sword; then flung it on the pavement to denote stoning, and finally roasted it, to signify burning; all which the cock was supposed to bear vicariously. Then the entrails were thrown upon the top of the house, (they being supposed to be the seat of sin,) that they might be carried far off. The reason a cock was chosen was from a kind of pun. A man in Hebrew is geber, 3) from gabar, to be strong; like the Latin vir, a man, from vis, strength (see Parkhurst,) and geber is also a cock in the dialect of the Babylonian Talmud. (Buxtorf. c. xxv.)

But even this custom has fallen greatly into disuse; and has ceased altogether among the Jews in Italy, and most parts of the East. To return to sacrifices in the Old Testament. The Chaldæans were confessedly the fathers of astronomy; and it has been ingeniously conjectured that the groupings and imagined figures of some of the constellations were originally designed to perpetuate the memory of Noah's first sacrifice after the Deluge. In Hyde's translation of Ulug Beg's Astrono mical Tables, the sign now called Argo, is simply termed Stella Navis, or the Ship; and is supposed by Maurice to be Noah's Ark. Then we have the Sacrificer (called by the Greeks, Chiron the centaur.) The Beast (so called by the Egyptians,) about to be sacrificed (the sign Lupus). Crater (the cup of libation). The Altar (Ara), and even Corvus (Noah's raven.)

Concerning Abraham's (intended) sacrifice of Isaac, a very remarkable and original theory has been advanced by one of the contributors to the Encyclopædia Metropolitana, viz., that Isaac was not the type of Christ, but of the faithful, i.e., the spiritual sons of Abraham; that the type of Christ was the ram; which was substituted for Isaac, or that the restoration of Isaac, when by the preparation for his sacrifice, his life was acknowledged forfeited, and the substitution of a victim provided by God, typified the restoration of the spiritual sons of Abraham, through the substitution of the vicarious sacrifice of Christ.

There was one grand point of difference between the Jews and the heathens; the sacrificial rites of the former were never stained with human blood, than which nothing could be conceived more abhorrent to all the attributes of Jehovah (Jephthah's daughter is no exception, for it cannot be proved she was sacrificed; on the contrary, the weightiest evidence tends to show she was solemnly dedicated to the service of God.) But the testimony of innumerable writers proves that no heathen nation has been free from human sacrifices; such having occurred, even amongst civilized people, at some period of their history, especially on some great occasion, to expiate a great sin, or avert some dreadful calamity. Even to this day, among the Hindoos, whose tenets forbid bloodshedding, human self-immolations, or sacrificial suicides,

are common.

Another point of difference is found in the animal sacrifices, which, amongst the heathens, were frequently of such as were particularly forbidden in the Mosaic law, unclean animals, and beasts of prey. Such as dogs offered to Hecate, swine to Mars (in the Suove Taurilia,) and wolves to Apollo. Heathens in their sacrifices poured oil over the beast, which the Jews did not; they the former) burned only a portion of the frankincense presented; the Jews burned all. The Greeks offered honey to the sun; in Jewish sacrifices it was forbidden;

and the Sabian idolaters ate the blood of their sacrifices, which Maimonides thinks was one of the reasons why it was so particularly prohibited to the Jews. Their bread-offerings also were leavened. Some points of similarity are to be found between the Jewish and heathen sacrifices. The heathens brought their victims to the temples, chose them without blemish, poured out libations of wine, cut the animal's throat, flayed and dissected it, caught the blood in a vessel, and poured it on and round the altar; and they used salt by mixing some with meal, and sprinkling it on the head of the animal, on which they also laid their hands. In the early times, the sacrifice was burnt whole; the skin being given to the priest; but later, part only was consumed, and the rest given to the sacrificers (if it was an eatable animal), to feast upon. The thighs and fat were the share of the gods. The victims among the Greeks and Romans were crowned with garlands, and adorned with fillets and ribands; and the horns of large animals were gilded. None of these decorations are enjoined in the Jewish sacrifices. M.

Roman Sacrifice of an Ox, Sheep, and Boar. SACRILEGE. The crime of profaning things sacred, or dedicated to God, by treating them with contempt; using them for common and servile purposes, or making them a cloak to sin. The word sacrilege occurs only once in our version of the canonical Scriptures, viz., in Rom. 2. 22: "Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?" It is used here in reproach to the Jewish teachers and priests, who, though most bigoted to their outward ceremonies and human traditions, were at the same time, in all matters of morality and internal holiness, become, in the later times of the Jewish polity, most abominably corrupt; and also unscrupulous with regard to the profanation of things held sacred by their own Law. They sacrilegiously profaned their own sacred offices as "guides of the blind, and lights to them which were in darkness," (Rom. 2. 19,) in licencing by dispensations, or sanctioning by quibbles, those very crimes which they were particularly bounden to hold up to abhorrence. Thus, while they should preach against adultery, (Rom. 2. 22,) they sanctioned it by permitting to themselves, and to laymen, wives under a form of marriage, for a short period, even for one day, then to be got rid of by a form of divorce; to the sinfulness of which Our Saviour alludes, Matt. 19. 3,6,9. (See Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Matt.) While they should preach against dishonesty, they sanctioned its being practised to a scandalous extent, in the very Temple, by the moneychangers, (Matt. 21,) who sat there to change foreign coin for those who came up to worship at Jerusalem, and to receive the customary tribute of the annual half shekel to the Sanctuary, or Holy Treasury; and that great fraud and extortion was committed by these men is confessed even by the Rabbinical writers. (Lightfoot on Matt.) The money-changers were called in the

Greek Koλλußiorat, kollubisti, from the Hebrew word ap kolbon, meaning the lucre or gain obtained in this manner. They had tables before them for counting the pieces; and chests near them to receive the money for the Sanctuary; and it will be observed that Christ in his anger at seeing the desecration of the Temple, overthrew the tables only on which the frauds were committed, but not the chests in which had been placed the money for the service of the Sanctuary. Thus he distinguished between things sacred and profane. (Matt. 21. 12.)

Another profanation of the Temple permitted by the priests, was the converting of its courts into a complete cattle market for the sale of sacrificial animals; and also permitting it to be made a common thoroughfare, which is even forbidden in the rabbinical treatise, Bava Jevamoth. (Lightfoot on St. Mark.) Thus Our Lord prohibited the carrying through it of any vessel, that it might not be a passage to persons going on their worldly business, and because in the court were booths erected in which vessels were sold, even for profane uses. Malachi, who lived about 420 years B.C., reproaches the priests with profaning the altar by sacrilegious offerings of polluted bread and blemished animals, (Mal. 1. 7.8) with a general corruption of the priesthood, (Mal. 2. 8,) "Ye have caused many to stumble at the Law: ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi," and with abominable and immoral doctrine, (Mal. 2. 17.) "Ye say every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them: or, Where the God of judg ment?" From Malachi's time to the destruction of Jerusalem, spiritual wickedness in the high places continued increasing. Josephus accuses the priesthood of thefts, murders, and various wickednesses, which were, in fact, so many sacrileges, being often committed in the very Temple. He also mentions that in A.D. 57, the high-priests were become so cruel and seditious as to send their servants to carry away by violence the tithes allotted to the maintenance of the poorer priests, many of whom, particularly the old and infirm, died in consequence of starvation. And this harmonizes with Malachi 3. 8, "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings?"

The whole, therefore, of the 2d chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, wherein alone the word sacrilege occurs, is directed against those profane Jewish teachers who, immersed in sin, and wholly overlooking spiritual sanctification, prided themselves on mere formula, and professions, and imaginary superior knowledge.

Though the word sacrilege is not used elsewhere in our version of the canonical Scriptures, yet we find the crime itself often alluded to; e. g., "profaning the sanetuary," (Levit. 21. 12;) "profaning hallowed things," (Levit. 19. 8;) "profaning the covenant," (Mal. 2. 10.)

The first sacrilegious act we read of is, that of Esau selling his birthright, (Gen. 25. 33,) for which he is called "profane" by St. Paul. called "profane" by St. Paul. (Heb. 12. 16.) The birthright possessed some privileges which at this day we are unable to state with certainty. It is mostly concluded to have been a type of celestial inheritance; and also to have conferred a right to the family priesthood (during the patriarchal dispensation), such as offering the sacrifices, &c. And this idea seems countenanced by Exodus 24. 5, "And he (Moses) sent the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the Lord; the word here translated "young men," being "first born," in the Chaldee: and this harmonizes with Numbers 3. 41, where the Levites are taken into the service of God, "instead of all the first born among the children

men young

of

of Israel;" and the consecration of the first born sons, (Exod. 22. 29; Whitby, on Heb. 12.) But whatever were the birthright, the alienation of it is considered both in the Old and New Testaments as sacrilegious.

There are many things in Scripture which come under the denomination of sacrilege, such as using improper sacrifices, (Deut. 17. 1,) taking common or strange fire for burning the incence before the Lord instead of the holy fire, (Lev. 10. 1,) using the holy oil for any purpose, save anointing the high-priest and the tabernacle furniture, (Exod. 30. 32,33,) coming to the tabernacle in a state of legal impurity, (Num. 19. 13,) keeping part of the peace offering too long before eating it, (Lev. 7. 18,) allowing a blemished priest to serve at the altar or enter within the vail, (Lev. 21. 21,23,) invading the priests' office to burn incense, (2Chron. 16. 18,) unprivileged persons eating of holy things, (Lev. 22. 10,12,) unconsecrated persons touching the ark, (2Sam. 6. 6,7,) or looking into it, (1Sam. 6. 19,) the high-priest entering at unpermitted times within the most holy place, (Lev. 13. 2.)

The penalty of sacrilege was generally death, which in some instances God instantly inflicted himself by special visitation upon the offenders: as, for instance, on Nadab and Abihu, who put strange fire into their censers, and were instantly killed by a fire from the Lord, which struck them like lightning; but they were not consumed, for we read that their bodies were buried without the camp in their linen coats. (Lev. 10.) It seems so extraordinary that two sons of Aaron, who had both been so highly privileged as to have been admitted into the presence of God on Mount Sinai, (Exod. 24. 9,10,) should have fallen into the sin of wilful and presumptuous sacrilege, that the only means of accounting for it is generally considered to be that they were both intoxicated with wine, from the preceding feast of the peace offerings; and this conjecture is strengthened by the prohibition to the priests to drink any wine during the time of their tabernacle-service, which is immediately annexed to the history of the punishment of Nadab and Abihu, indicating that excess in wine had been the cause of their crime, and guarding against it in future; and in verse 10, the reason of the prohibition is stated; "that ye may put difference between holy and unholy," which difference Nadab and Abihu had not observed, as though from having had their minds confused. When the men of Bethshemesh looked into the ark to satisfy their curiosity, the sacrilege was punished by a number of them being struck dead. (1Sam. 6. 19.) The number of the men smitten is a matter that has exercised the ingenuity of commentators. In our translation it is stated at fifty thousand, three score, and ten men; which is considered impossible for so small a place as Bethshemesh, a petty town of Judah, if not rather a village. Even supposing the whole region or district were smitten, still the number seems too great to be probable. Commentators therefore have observed, that the words in the Hebrew are written in a confused and unusual manner, as if by some mistake of the copyist. The words lie in the Hebrew thus, "three score and ten men, fifty thousand men." Bochart judges that the particle (out of), is wanting before "thousand;" and that the true meaning is, that God smote "seventy men, fifty out of a thousand;" that he smote a twentieth-part of the offenders, in the proportion of fifty out of a thousand; thus, fourteen hundred having transgressed, seventy men were punished. Bochart has produced parallel passages in Scripture where the particle is wanting in the same manner; and his interpretation has been generally applauded. (Bishop Patrick, on 1 Samuel.) Josephus (b. vi. c. 2) says, that seventy

1173

men of Bethshemesh were smitten; and for so small a place this might be called "a great slaughter." Uzzah was smitten (2 Sam. 6. 67) for taking hold of the ark, when the oxen who drew it shook the cart in which it was, and probably stumbled with it. He was a Levite, and knew the sanctity of the ark, and the reverence in which God required it to be held; and had before his eyes the example of the men of Bethshemesh, and also of the punishments that had befallen the Philistines who detained it. (1Sam. 5.) detained it. (1Sam. 5.) Though it was the duty of the Levites to carry the ark by the staves appointed for that use, (Exod. 25. 14,) they were not to touch the ark, which in its journeys was carefully enveloped by the priests in its proper coverings.

Though Uzziah, when he invaded the priest's office in burning incense, (2 Chron. 26,) was smitten with leprosy, instead of being struck dead, the punishment was as great, a leper being, in the Jewish polity, civilly dead to all intents; and the privations consequent on it must to a king have rendered his reverse of state peculiarly severe. And the penalty pursued him after death, for he was not buried in the sepulchres of the kings, being a leper. Some have conjectured that it was on this occasion of Uzziah's sacrilege that the earthquake occurred, which is mentioned in Zechariah 14. 5: "Ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah, king of Judah." Josephus says the earthquake took place at the moment of Uzziah's impiety; that a rent was made in the Temple, and before the city at a place called Enroge, half the mountain at the west side, and rolled four furlongs, and stopped at the east; and the roads and the king's gardens were choked up by it. (Josephus, Antiq., b. ix., c. 10.)

The jealousy of the Almighty respecting things dedicated to Him, and his punishment of the profanation of them, is alluded to by St. Paul, (1 Cor. 3. 17,) "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."

In the earlier and purer ages of the Jewish polity, the nation generally respected hallowed things; but in later ages the example of profanation was set them by the very priesthood. very priesthood. At the Christian era, though the sacred things and places were commonly profaned by the Jews themselves, yet the cry of sacrilege was readily resorted to by them against any one whom they wished to crush. Thus, the grand accusation against Our Lord was, that he spoke disrespectfully of the Temple. (Matt. 26. 61.) And an uproar was excited against St. Paul, in Jerusalem, on the charge that he brought Greeks into the Temple, and polluted the holy place, (Acts 21. 28,29,) though daily profanations were committed by the affected zealots with impunity. At length, in the closing scenes of Jerusalem, such was the multitude and the magnitude of the sacrileges, that Josephus says, if the Romans had not taken the city of Jerusalem, he would have expected it to have been swallowed up, like Sodom, or have had some other dreadful judgment.

In the New Testament we read but little of any thing pertaining to sacrilege, except St. Paul's rebuke of the Corinthians for their profane conduct at the celebration of the Lord's Supper. (1Cor. 11. 29.) In that early period of the Christian Church, it had not been able as yet regularly to establish sacred places and things; but as soon as circumstances permitted, we shall find in the church history of every nation a due respect for consecrated things, and laws for the preservation of it. Even the heathens, particularly the Greeks and Romans, were not without their rules concerning sacrilege, the penalty of which was usually death. Thus, it was held sacrilege for the polluted to pass beyond the porch of the temple; to spit or wipe the nose in a temple; to cut

down consecrated trees; to build upon, or till, any spot of ground where a thunder-bolt had fallen; to suffer a man to witness the ceremonies of the Bona Dea, or Good Goddess, or to suffer a woman to enter the Temple of Diana, in the Vicus Patricius in Rome; to suffer a birth or death to occur in the holy isle of Delos; to steal any thing belonging to a temple; to approach a sacrifice without being sprinkled by the priest with the lustral water; to consecrate a blemished man to the priesthood (compare with the Jewish Law, Lev. 21. 21), and many other instances which will occur to the classical reader. M.

SADDUCEE, PT3 Tzadik, plur. Op Tzadikim, "Sadducees," or "Righteous Men," a sect among the Jews, deriving their name either from their strict adherence to the righteousness of the law, or from Sadoc, who is said to have founded their sect about the year of the world 3740. As only few and imperfect fragments of Sadducean writings have been preserved, we are obliged to trust for an account of their tenets to the writings of their enemies. We learn that they adhered strictly to the letter of the Mosaic law, and that they rejected all the traditions whether of practice or doctrine which were cherished by the Pharisees. Amongst the rejected doctrines were the separate and distinctive continuance of the soul after death, and the existence of angels. Though some may have believed that the soul was mortal and actually perished with the body, there were others who held that man's spirit was absorbed into the Divine essence, and thus deprived of its individuality and separate consciousness. This doctrine of absorption" has been widely diffused over the East from the earliest ages, and is still held by millions of the Asiatics; it is not only received by the Buddhists, the most numerous of all religious denominations, but also by great numbers of the Mohammedans. Though the creed of absorption is very different from that of annihilation, with which it is often confounded, yet both are equally opposed to a belief in a future retribution for the deeds done in the body. Hence, Our blessed Lord in his celebrated argument with the Sadducees, insists not only on the actual living existence of the patriarchs, but also on their separate and individual existence: "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." (Mark 12. 26.)

It is sometimes said that the Sadducees rejected the historical and prophetical books of the Old Testament, receiving as authentic only the Pentateuch. As we are absolutely ignorant of the circumstances under which the Hebrew canon was completed, it is not easy to determine whether any doubt or difficulty arose respecting what books were to be received as sacred, and what were to be rejected as having insufficient authority. The existence of the Apocrypha, may, however, be received as proof that some doubt and dispute arose on the subject. The Sadducees were probably more rigid in their canon than the Pharisees, but it is clear that they could not have rejected all the books except the Pentateuch, for they attended the synagogues where the other Scriptures were publicly read as well as the Law.

The Sadducees were exceedingly rigorous in chastising transgressors; insisting that all the penalties of the Levitical law should be enforced to the letter, and insisting that the traditions of the Pharisees opened too many loopholes for the escape of offenders. Hence they were generally unpopular, and in some cases exposed to danger from tumultuous assemblies of the lower ranks. In general, the Sadducees belonged to the higher and better educated order of Jewish society; they were scrupulously moral, and did not, like the Pharisees, practise the ob

servance of a ritual instead of the performance of rectitude. Before the destruction of Jerusalem the sect seems to have disappeared; indeed, its tenets were too cold to be retained by any nation subject to high excitement. C.

SADDLE, W chabash. The word which our translators render by "to saddle," literally signifies "to bind about," and many commentators believe might more properly be rendered "to bridle." It is certain that saddles were unknown for many ages after the custom of riding had been introduced. Those who did not ride barebacked were contented with placing a piece of leather or cloth between them and their steed. As luxury advanced a soft cushion was introduced, to which were added various ornamental trappings, and these were soon carried to a ridiculous excess of ostentation. Saddles, properly so called, were in all probability invented by the Persians, perhaps for the sake of giving a steady seat to their mounted archers, a part of their military force to which they always paid the greatest attention.

Pack-saddles must have been a much earlier invention, for something was obviously necessary to prevent the backs of animals bearing heavy burdens from being chafed by the loads. K.

SAIL. See SHIP, VESSEL, &c.

SAINT. 1. A person eminent for piety and virtue. 2. A consecrated or sanctified person. There are two words in the Hebrew Scripture used to express the above, both which are rendered in our translation by the single expression Saint. But these two Hebrew words are shown by Dr. Campbell, in his Dissertations, to be of different application and extent. They are the words WP kadosh, and chasid.

Kadosh, means sanctified by office, by covenant or consecration. Chasid signifies pious in character, holy in heart. Kadosh has been shown by Dr. Campbell to be used as well for things as persons. It is applied to the holy vestments and utensils: to the Temple and its courts; to holy times and seasons, as the Sabbaths and jubilees, the festivals and fasts; to persons consecrated to the service of God, as the priests and Levites; it is applied to the Jews, who are called a holy people, because they were particularly separated from the Gentiles for the service of God, not that they were especially amiable and pious in character, but the reverse. It is also thus applied to the land of Judea, as a holy land.

The term TD chasid (saint or holy) is applied only to persons, and signifies holy by character and feeling, so that, in fact, we may understand p kadosh, as meaning devoted (by consecration) to the service of God; and T chasid, as devout (by feeling) in his service. The Seventy-two have observed and marked the difference, uniformly translating p kadosh, as ayios, hagios; and TD chasid, as oσtos, osios, or by some analogous word, as in 2Chronicles 6. 41, "Let thy priests, O Lord God, be clothed with salvation, and let thy saints rejoice in goodness:" there saints is D chasidi, the pious, and is rendered in the Septuagint by oi vioi oov, "thy sons;" and here, by a mode of expression common in Hebrew, the priests, who are holy by office, answer in contrast to the pious or saintly, who are holy by personal character. And in Proverbs 2. 8, "He preserveth the way of his saints,” chasidim is rendered in the Septuagint by evλaßovμevov AUTOV, i. e., "Those fearing him."

Where p kadosh occurs, and is in our version

rendered saint, in the Septuagint is always ayos, holy, i. e., sanctified. In Psalm 106. 16, speaking of the Jews, it is said, "They envied Aaron, the saint of the Lord." (Saint, kadosh, ayos hagios.) Dr. Campbell thinks this epithet is given to Aaron, not because his personal character was holier than that of Moses, (who is mentioned in the beginning of the verse,) but because he was the only person of the nation who bore on his forehead the seal of his consecration, "holiness to the Lord," (Exod. 28. 36,) engraved on gold, and fixed to the front of his mitre. Thus then the Jews envied him, not that he rose superior to them in piety of heart and saintliness of conduct; but that he was elevated above them by the sanctity of his rank and office; a feeling quite in harmony with the general Jewish character, and according with the rebellion of Korah, (Numb. 16,) when he and his followers reproached Moses and Aaron that they "took too much upon them, and lifted themselves up above the congregation," asserting at the same time, that all the congregation were holy, p kadosh, consecrated; not TD chasid, pious; i. e., they were holy, or sainted, by covenant, as the Lord's people; not pious and saint-like in temper and conduct, (Job 5. 1,) "Call now if there be any that will answer thee; and to which of the saints (DP kadoshim) wilt thou turn?" "Saints," in Septuagint ayiov ayyeλwv, “holy angels," they being particularly dedicated to God as his

messengers.

Dan. 8. 13. "Then I heard one saint (P kadosh) speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake" (or was speaking). This saint, or Holy One, who was speaking, is conceived by Lowth to be the Aoyos, or Word of God; and to be thus indicated by the repetition of the word 27 deber, speaking (137 being also Word, and distinguished by the prefix 1, the second time it is used. And thus it seems to be the same with the "man's voice" which Daniel heard, in verse 16, on the banks of the Ulai; the "man clothed in linen, upon the waters of the river," to whom Daniel said, "Oh! my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?" (Dan. 12. 7, 8.) To return to Dr. Campbell's opinion on the meaning of the words kadosh and chasid, equally translated "saint." He states the primitive meaning of kadosh WP ayios, hagios, I., to be clean, 1, in a literal sense, free from filth; 2, in the sense of religious ceremonial. II. As things are made clean for use, the word has been adopted to mean prepared, fitted, for a particular purpose; hence consecrated. III. As things so prepared are treated with particular care, to hallow and sanctify, comes to signify to honour and stand in awe of; and holy, to be honourable and venerable. IV. Cleanness has been always a metaphor for piety; so it comes to be applied to holiness and sanctification. O chasid, oσtos, is a mental quality; its most certain acceptation being pious, just, godly, &c. The principal texts in which "saint" in our version is kadosh, ayos, hagios, are Deut. 33. 3; Job 15. 14; Psalm 16. 3; Psalm 34. 9; 79. 5-7, Zech. 14. 5. The principal in which saint is chasid Doσios, Psalm 145. 10; 30. 4; 37. 28; 50. 5; 52. 9; 79. 2; 97. 10; 116. 15. It may here be observed that the Hebrew word for an immoral woman is kedesha, derived from kadosh, in its signification of separated, dedicated; because such women among idolaters were dedicated to the service of the temples of their false deities, particularly those of Venus; and to the ancient priests of Bel, or Belus. Of such female devotees, instances are to be found in the present day attached to the Hindoo temples.

are

The later Jews have their "saints," as well as the Christian Church; the word they use is P kadosh. Their

1175

most celebrated saint is Rabbi Judah Hak-kadosch, "Rabbi Judah the Holy." He lived about one hundred and twenty years after the destruction of the second Temple, and was the author of the Mishna (compendium of rabbinical opinions,) of the Babylonian Talmud. They have also their devout men, DD chasidim, who devote themselves to a religious life, and to the study of their law; visit the dying, perform the rites for the dead, &c. Of such kind were the "devout persons" with whom St. Paul disputed. (Acts 17. 17.) In the New Testament, the word aycos, hagios, is used throughout, whereever our version has saint; and with the same signification as in the Septuagint, viz., separated, dedicated, sanctified by consecration, because the Christians were then especially dedicated to God's service, in separation from the Jews and pagans; as the Jews had been before "the holy people," separated from the Gentiles. After the Christian era, the martyrs were considered as dignified saints, in the same rank as the apostles, i.e., saints by profession and office, as distinguished from the saints, or holy and pious by character and conduct, such as have been eminent for religion and virtue, but not canonized. After some time canonization was extended also to confessors; that is, persons who during the persecutions against the Christians had made a resolute avowal and defence of their faith, and had suffered torture, banishment, or confiscation in consequence, but not actual martyrdom.

For some centuries there was no regular canonization in the Christian church. By a tacit consent of the clergy the names of martyrs, &c., were inserted as saints in a kind of ecclesiastical register, called a diptych. It was not till about the ninth century that solemn and formal canonization, with its particular ceremonies, began to be regularly practised. At present, in the Church of Rome, the ceremony of beatification, or being pronounced blessed by the Pope, must precede canonization, and cannot take place till fifty years after death.

Concerning the bodies of the saints which arose and came out of their graves after the resurrection of Christ, (Matt. 27. 50,) it is believed that they were persons who believed in him and waited for him in hope, as old Simeon had done, (Luke 2. 25,) but who had died before his resurrection, and who were thus favoured to be an example of the general resurrection, and to whom Christ alluded, (John 5. 25,) Christ alluded, (John 5. 25,) "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live;" and of whom St. Paul speaks, "Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept;" because his resurrection was the signal for theirs.

It appears that these persons must have been deceased during the then present generation; for they went into Jerusalem, and appeared unto many, who could not have recognised them, had they been much longer dead.

We may here observe, that when the word saint or saints, ayios, ayiot, is used in the New Testament relative to persons deceased, it is to be understood of the spirits of the just (without any distinction of office or character) made perfect.

According to Cedrenus, the Byzantine historian, canonization, or religious veneration for the eminent dead, took its rise among the posterity of Serug, son of Japheth. At first they honoured illustrious men among their predecessors by erecting columnar statues to their memory. Later generations, outstepping these limits, honoured them as heavenly powers, and sacrificed to them. The manner of their canonization was this: they inscribed the names of the deceased in their sacred books, and established a festival dedicated to each at stated seasons, saying that their souls had