Sarttz – Sacraments

Sarttz

Father of Meshullemeth, mother of Amou king of Judah (2 Kings 21:19).

Suddin

A town in the wilderness of Judah (Jos 15"). The site has not been recovered.

lODIAN, nUDIANITES. — A nomadic tribe or group of tribes, said by an early genealogy (Genesis 25:2) to be descended from Abraham by Keturah, of which the Kenites (wh. see) were a part. They lived in ancient times in northern Arabia, but vanished at an early date from history.

According to E they were traders, who sold Joseph into Egypt (Genesis 37). They roamed about Sinai (Ex 3:1 ff.: Habakkuk 3:7). Jethio (E) or Hobab (J), Moses’ father-in-law, was their priest. As Jethro is also said to be a Kenite (Judges 1:16). probably the Kenites were a part of the Mldianites. They were afterwards absorbed by the tribe of Judah (Judges 1:16, 1 Samuel 15:6). The Prophetic source (J) also shows that in an early form of the narra^ five it was Midian, not Moab, that was said to have hired Balaam to curse Israel (cf. Numbers 22:4, 7). If this is so, it was a different branch of Mldianites from the Kenites. The same source informs us (Genesis 36:35) that a king of Edora smote Midian in the field of Moab. The references point to an activity of Midian in this region of which we have no other trace.

The next we hear of the Mldianites is in the period of the Judges, when they invaded the territory of central Palestine in hordes, and were put to rout by Gideon and his three hundred men (Jg 6-8) . These Mldianites seem to have lived to the east of Palestine, and to have gained access to the west Jordan lands through the valley of the Jabbok. This corresponds with the statement of Genesis 25:6 (JE), that the sons of Abraham by Keturah, of whom Midian was one, lived to the eastward. At the time of Gideon the Mldianites were led by two chiefs, whose names J preserves as Zebah and Zalmunna (Judges 8:18), while E calls them Oreb and Zeeb (Judges 7:25). Gideon so completely ruined the power of the Mldianites that his victory was long remembered (cf. Isaiah 9:4 10:26, Psalms 83:9). From this blow the tribe never recovered, and disappears from history.

According to a late Priestly passage (Numbers 31:2–18), Moses is said to have gained a great victory over the Mldianites. Perhaps, as some scholars think, this is a later version of the victory of Gideon. Possibly it is another version of the victory of the king of Edom.

The genealogy given in Genesis 25:1–4 calls Ephah a son of Midian. Is Wf"- mentions both Midian and Ephah in connexion with Kedar. Tiglath-pileser in. (KIB ii. 21) mentions a Khayapa in connexion with Taima, which De- Utzsch (Parodies, 304) identifies with Ephah. This would correspond with the location given in the genealogy.

Ptolemy (Geog. vi. 7) mentions a place, Modiana, on the coast of Arabia, which is probably the same as Madyan on the Haj road to Mecca. Noldeke (BBi ill. col. 3081) thinks that the name has survived from an old habitat of the Mldianites. Geobgb A. Barton.

Seisgab

Mentioned along with Nebo and Kiriathaim in the oracle against Moab (Jeremiah 48:1). Perhaps it is not intended as a proper name. The same Heb. term occurs in Isaiah 25:12. where both AV and RV tr. ‘high fort" (cf. 2 Samuel 22:3. Psalms 9:9 bis 18:2 46:7, 11 48:3 59:9, 16, 17 62:2, 6 94:22 144:2. Isaiah 33:16).

SaSHAEL.— 1. A Kohathite (Ex Leviticus 10:4). 2. One of Ezra’s supporters (Neb 8:4) called in 1 Esdras 9:44 Misael. 3. See Meshach.

IfftSHAL.— A town of Asher (Joshua 19:26). given to the Gershonite Levites (21:30) = 1 Chronicles 6:74 Mashal. The site is unknown.

Sabachthani

See Eloi, Eloi, etc.

Sab

Sab iEANS.— See Sheba.

Sabanneus

Sabanneus (1 Esdras 9:33) Ezra 10:33.

Sabannus

Sabannus (1 Esdras 8) = Binnui, Ezra 8:33.

Sabaoth

See God, 2 (h), and Lord of Hosts.

Sabatetts

Sabatetts (.1 Es g<8) = Shabbethai, Nehemiah 8:7.

Sabathus

Sabathus a Esdras 9:28) = Zabad, Ezra 10:27.

Sabbate

Sabbate tJS (1 Esdras 9:14) = Shabbethai, Ezra 10:15.

Sabbath

1. Origin of the Sabbath.— The name ‘Sabbath’ (Heb. shabbath, from a verb shabath, meaning ‘to desist’) might be applied to any sacred season as a time of cessation from labour, and is so used of the Day of Atonement, which was observed annually on the tenth day of the seventh month (Leviticus 16:31 23:32). But in usage it is almost confined to the day of rest which closed each week of seven days, the cycle running continuously through the calendar without regard to the month or the year. The origin of this institution, and its early history among the Israelites, are involved in much obscurity. That it has affinities with certain Babylonian observances is obvious; but the differences are vety marked, and a direct dependence of the one on the other is difficult to understand. It is known that in two months (possibly in all) the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th days (those in which the moon enters a new phase), and also the IQth (the [7X7th=] 49th from the beginning of the previous month), were regarded in Babylonia as unlucky days, on which certain actions had to be avoided by important personages (king, priest, physician). The name shabattu has .also been found in the inscriptions, where it is explained as flm nill} K66i=‘day of the appeasement of the heart’ (of the deity), — in the first instance, therefore, a day of prayer or atonement. But that the five unlucky days mentioned above were called shabattu has not been proved, and is, indeed, rendered improbable by the more recent discovery that shabattu was a name for the day of the full moon (the 16th of the month). When we turn to the early references to the Sabbath in the OT, we find a state of things which seems at first sight to present a parallel to the Babylonian usage. It is a

singular fact that except in the expansions of the Fourth Commandment in Exodus 20:9–11 and Deuteronomy 5:13–15 (which are evidently no part of the original Decalogue), there is nothing in the pre-exilic literature which explicitly indicates that the word ‘Sabbath’ denoted a weekly day of rest. In the kernel of the Decalogue (Exodus 20:8. Deuteronomy 5:12). the observance of the Sabbath is enjoined; but neither the manner of its observance nor the period of its recurrence is prescribed. Where, on the other hand, the weekly rest is inculcated (Exodus 23:12 34:21), the name ‘Sabbath’ does not occur. In the prophetic and historical books ‘Sabbath’ and ‘new moon’ are associated in such a way as to suggest that both Were lunar festivals (Amos 8:5. Ho 2:11. Isaiah 1:13. 2 Kings 4:23) and the attempt has been made to trace the transition from the Babylonian institution to the Hebrew Sabbath by the hypothesis that originally the Sabbath in Israel was the feast of the full moon, just as in Babylonia. This theory, however, is little but an ingenious paradox. It is arbitrary to deny the antiquity of Exodus 23:12 or 34:21; and if the word ‘Sabbath’ is not found in these passages, yet the related verb shabath is used in both, as is rarely the case except in connexion with the Sabbath. Moreover, the way in which the Sabbath is isolated from all other sacred seasons (Decalogue, 2 Kings 11:5 ff. IC’s) goes far to show that even in the pre-exilic period it was a festival sui generis, and had already acquired something of the prominence which belonged to it in later times. How little force there is in the argument from the connexion of ‘new moon’ and ‘Sabbath’ may be seen from Isaiah 66:23. Colossians 2:16 f.: The most reasonable conclusion is that the weekly Sabbath is everywhere presupposed in the OT, and that, if it be connected historically with Babylonian institutions, the development lies behind the range of Israelite tradition, and in all probability was a feature of Canaanitish civilization when the Hebrews settled in the country. It must be remembered, however, that the hypothesis of a Babylonian origin does not exhaust the possibilities of the case. Although a regularly recurring day of rest is neither necessary nor possible for pastoral nomads, it is quite conceivable that some form of Sabbath observance, depending on the phases of the moon, was practised by the Hebrews in the desert, and that the transformation of this primitive lunar festival into the Sabbath as we find it in the OT was due to the suppression of its superstitious associations under the influence of the national religion of Israel.

2. Religious significance of the Sabbath. — The distinctive characteristics of the Hebrew Sabbath were mainly these two: it was, first, a day sacred to Jahweh, and second, a day of rest. In the earlier period cessation from labour may have been merely a consequence of the festal character of the day; although the reinforcement of the ceremonial sanction by humanitarian motives in the legislation (Exodus 23:12. Deuteronomy 5:14) shows that already the religious mind of the nation had grasped the final justification of the Sabbath as an institution piade for man, and not one for which man was made. This conception of the Sabbath underwent a radical modification in the age of the Exile. It is hardly accurate to say that the change was entirely due to the fact that the Sabbath was one of the few religious ordinances by which the Israelite in a foreign land could mark his separation from heathenism. The idea of the Sabbath as a covenant between Jahweh and Israel, which is elaborated in Ezekiel and the code called the Law of Holiness, is foreshadowed in Deuteronomy 5:15; and even the more imposing conception of it as a memorial of the Creation finds expression in Exodus 20:11. which is quite possibly of older date than the Priestly account of Creation in Genesis 1. The truth is that in this, as in many other cases, the real turning-point was not the deportation of the people but the suppression of the popular ritual by Josiah’s reformation. None the less it is important to observe that, for whatever reason, a profound transformation of the character of the Sabbath emerges in writings of the Exilic and post-exilic period. The obligation of rest, from being a necessary concomitant of acts of worship, or a means to a higher end, becomes an end in itself, a form of self-denial, pleasing to the Deity as an act of implicit obedience to His positive command. The whole of the subsequent legislation proceeds from this point of view. In Ezekiel and the Law of Holiness the Sabbath (as has just been observed) is conceived as an arbitrary sign of the covenant between Jahweh and Israel, and of the individual’s fidelity to that covenant. The Priestly Code not only exalts the Sabbath by basing its sanction on the example of the Creator (Genesis 2:2–4. Exodus 31:17). but seeks to enforce its observance by the Imposition of the death penalty (Exodus 31:14, Numbers 15:32–36). and sets the example of guarding its sanctity by prohibitive regulations (Exodus 35:3). . The memoirs of Nehemiah reveal at once the importance attached to the Sabbath as a mark of the distinction between the faithful Jews and their heathen neighbours (10 13:15). and the stern determination which was necessary to compel obedience (13:17 ff.). In post-exilic prophecies there are several allusions to Sabbath observance as a supreme religious duty, and a condition of the fulfilment of the Messianic expectations (Jeremiah 17:19 ff.: Isaiah 56:2 ff. 58 es^s). At the commencement of the Maccabaean revolt, regard for the Sabbath was so ingrained in the mind of the people that strict Jews allowed themselves to be slaughtered by their enemies rather than use arms for their own defence (1 Maccabees 2:31 ff.) though after one incident of this kind the maxim was laid down that defensive operations in war were legitimate on the Sabbath (v. 41).

3. The Sabbath in the NT.— The Gospels show that by the time of Christ the casuistry of the scribes had hedged round the Sabbath with many of those petty and vexatious rules which are preserved in the Rabbinical literature, and which completely eviscerated the institution of any large principle of religion or humanity. Accordingly the Sabbath law was (next to His own Messianic claims) the chief subject of contention between our Lord and the Pharisees (see Matthew 12: Luke 13:14 ff. 14:1 ff.: John 5 T’ 9:14 ff. etc.). As regards our Lord’s own attitude, it is enough to say that it combined reverence for the ordinance, in so far as it served religious ends (Luke 4:16 etc.), with a resolute vindication of the principle that ‘the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath’ (Mark 2:27). Similarly, in the Pauline Epistles the Sabbath is relegated, either inferentially (Romans 14: Galatians 4:9 ff.) or expressly (Colossians 2:16 f.). to the category of things morally indifferent, with regard to which each man must follow the dictates of his conscience. It is significant also that the decree of the Council of Jerusalem does not impose the observance of the Sabbath on the Gentile Churches (Acts 15:29). On the later Christian observance of the first day of the week, and its assimilation to the Jewish Sabbath, see Lord’s Day. J. Skinner.

Sabbath Day's Journey

See Weights and Measures, I,

Sabbatical Year

(including year of Jubilee). 1. OT references. — In a consideration of the regulations connected with the Sabbatical and Jubilee years, it is of the greatest importance to keep distinct the various stages of the Jewish legislation on the subject. The various ordinances differ greatly in character and detail; and in order to comprehend this diversity it is necessary to assume as granted the main conclusions of OT criticism, and to admit at any rate that a separation in time and difference in spirit characterize the several parts of the ‘Mosaic Law.’

Exodus. In 23’"- " an entire cessation of all fieldwork is ordered to take place in every 7th year. This is said to be dictated by a regard for the poor and the beasts of the field. In effect the gift of one year’s produce to the poor is prescribed, that the landless may receive the usufruct of the soil. In 212-6 it is laid down that a Hebrew slave can be kept in bondage only for six years. After this period he was automatically emancipated, though his wife and children must remain in servitude, if he had married after his term of service began. But provision was made for cases where a slave might desire to remain in this condition. A public ceremony took place which signified his acceptance of the position in perpetuity. Nothing is here said which leads us to suppose that there was one simultaneous period of emancipation all over the country, and no reference is made to redemption of land or remission of debts.

Deuteronomy. In IS’-‘the 7th year is assigned as the period at which all the liabilities of a Jew were suspended (or possibly, as Josephus supposes, entirely cancelled); this provision was to be of universal operation. IS’"-" repeats the ordinances of Exodus 21 with regard to the emancipation of slaves; here again no simultaneity of redemption can be inferred. 31:10–13 prescribes that the Law is to be read every 7th year (the ‘year of release’) at the Feast of Tabernacles (cf. Neh 8:13–18). Nothing is said in Deuteronomy about a possible redemption of land.

Leviticus. In 25 provision is made for a seventhyear fallow; but there is no mention of the poor. The reason assigned is that the land, being Jehovah’s land, must keep Sabbath, i.e. the Sabbath principle is extended to cover nature as well as man. We also find here the jubilee ordinances. After 49 years had elapsed, every SOth year was to be inaugurated as a jubilee by the blowing of the trumpet on the Day of Atonement. All slaves were to be emancipated (this may be a modified substitutefor the earlier provisions with regard to emancipation after 7 years); no mention is made of the possibility of perpetual slavery, but it is ordained that the Hebrew slave of a foreigner may be redeemed by a relative, all Jews being essentially Jehovah’s servants. The land was to lie fallow, and providential aid is promised to ensure sufficiency of produce during the period of three years when no harvest could be gathered, viz. the 49th year, which would be a sabbatical fallow, the year of jubilee, and the following year, when tillage would be resumed. Here also we find elaborate directions for the redemption of land in the jubilee year. They may be thus summarized: (1) No landed property may be sold, but only the usufruct of its produce up to the next jubilee, and the price must be calculated by the distance from that period. (2) A kinsman may redeem land thus mortgaged, or (the meaning may possibly be) exercise a right of pre-emption upon it. (3) The mortgager may redeem at the selling price, less the yearly proportion for the time elapsed since the sale. (4) House property in walled towns (not in villages) may be sold outright, and is redeemable only during one year. Such property was presumably regarded as human and artificial, whilst all land was essentially the property of Jehovah. (5) The Levitical possessions were redeemable at any time, and did not come under the jubilee provisions. (6) Nothing is said in Lev. as to the remission of debts, but there is a general prohibition of usury. (7) In Lv 27 a field devoted to Jehovah must be valued at once at a fixed rate, and might be redeemed at this price, plus a fine of 20 per cent., up to the year of jubilee. If not redeemed by then it became sacred property: no redemption of it was thereafter possible.

2. Purposes of the Sabbatical rules. — The purposes underlying the ordinances above catalogued may be classified under 4 heads: but it is practically Impossible to assign any certain priority of time to any one of the classes, (a) The periodical fallow. This is a very common provision in agriculture, and the seven years’ period is still observed in Syria. Since the fallow year was not at first everywhere simultaneous, the earlier historical books are silent about it ; and indeed it cannot have been generally observed. For the 70 years’ captivity and desolation of the land was regarded as makiHg up for the unobserved Sabbaths of the land (2 Chronicles 36:21, cf. Leviticus 26). The reference in Nehemiah 10:31 may be to the periodical fallow or to the remission of debts. But 1 Maccabees 6:49, 53 shows that the fallow year was observed later. (6) The emandpaiion of slaves (cf. Jeremiah 34:8, 9). Such a provision must have been very difiicult to enforce, and we find no other possible reference to it. (c) The remission or suspension of debts. The only reference is the dubious one in Nehemiah 10:31. (d) The redemption of real property. The kind of tenure here implied is not uncommonly found In other countries, and Jeremiah 32:6 ff.: Ruth 4, Ezekiel 7:13 show that something akin to it did exist in Palestine (cf. also Ezekiel 46:17). But that it was in no sense universal may be inferred from Isaiah’s and Micah’s denunciations of land-grabbing; on the other hand, 1 Kings 21:3, 4 furnishes an instance of the inalienability of land. C!f. Leviticus, p. 543.

In general we have no sign that the sabbatical and jubilee provisions were ever strictly observed in Biblical times. Their principles of rest and redemption, though never practised as a piece of social politics, were preached as ideals, and may have had some effect in discouraging slave-owning, land-grabbing, and usury, and in encouraging a more merciful view of the relations between Jew and Jew. Thus Isaiah 61:1–3 is steeped in the jubilee phraseology, and Christ adopted this passage to explain His own mission (Luke 4). A. W. F. Blunt.

Sabbeus

Sabbeus (1 Esdras 9) = Shemaiab, Ezra 10:31.

Sabi

Sabi (1 Esdras 5:28) = Shobai, Ezra 2:42. Nehemiah 7:45.

Sabias

Sabias (1 Esdras 1:9) = Hashabiah, 2 Chronicles 35:9.

Sabie

‘The children of Pochereth-hazzebaim,’ Ezra 2:57, Nehemiah 7:59, appear as ‘the sons of Phacereth, the sons of Sable’ in 1 Esdras 5:34.

Sabta, Sabtah

In the genealogical list of Genesis 10:7 a son of Cush, named between Havilah and other Arabian districts. It was probably a region on or near the east coast of Arabia, but in spite of several conjectures it has not been identified with any historical tribe or country. The relationship with Cush is to be accounted for on the ground that the Cushites were held to have extended across the Red Sea from Nubia north-eastward over the great peninsula. J. F. McCurdy.

Sabteca

The youngest son of Cush according to Genesis 10:7. The only identification at all plausible has been made with Samydake on the E. side of the Persian Gulf. But this is improbable, since that region did not come within the Cushite domain, as judged by the names of the other sons of Cush. Possibly Sabteca is a miswriting for Sabtah (wh. see). J. F. McCuedy.

Sacab

1 . The father of Ahiam ( 1 Chronicles 11:35 = 2 Samuel 23:33 Sharar). 2. A family of gatekeepers (1 Chronicles 26:4).

Sackbut

See Music, etc., § 4 (c).

Sackcloth

The sackcloth of OT was a coarse dark cloth made on the loom from the hair of goats and camels. In the extant literature it is almost always associated with mourning for the dead (Genesis 37:34, 2 Samuel 3:31 and oft.): and especially with the public expression of humiliation and penitence in view of some national misfortune, present or impending (1 Kings 21:27. Nehemiah 9:1. Jonah 3:5 etc.). For other tokens of grief and penitence, associated with the donning of sackcloth, such as ashes or dust on the head, and the rending of garments (this being a later substitute for their entire removal), see MouHNiNG Customs. In such cases the person or persons concerned are generally said to ‘gird’ themselves with sackcloth, or to have sackcloth about their loins, from which it is evident that the sackcloth was worn in the form of a loincloth or waistcloth, tied in the ancient manner in a knot in front (cf. Isaiah 20:2 ‘loose the sackcloth,’ lit. ‘untie the knot ‘). It was worn by women as well as by men (Isaiah 32:11. Judith 9:1). The putting of it upon cattle, however, as mentioned in Jonah 3:8 and Judith 4:10, and even upon an altar (4:11), is, from the nature of the passages cited, rather a literary than a historical extravagance.

In this custom most modern scholars recognize an illustration of conservatism in religious practice. The waistcloth is known to have been the oldest article of dress among the Semites (see Dhess, § 2), and as such it appears to have been retained in mourning customs and in humiliation before God, and perhaps in the exercise of the cultus, long after it had ceased to be the only garment of the people. The ihram or waistcloth still worn by the Moslem pilgrims during their devotions at the sacred shrine at Mecca, has often been cited as a modern parallel. A. R. S. Kennedy.

Sacraments

1. The term.— Although applied by common consent to certain institutions of the NT, the word ‘sacrament’ (Lat. sacramentum) is not a Scriptural one. In classical Lat. sacramentum (fr. sacrare, ‘to consecrate’) is used esp. in two senses: (a) passively, as a legal term, to denote a sum of money deposited by the parties to a suit, which was forfeited by the loser and appropriated to sacred uses; (6) actively, as a military term, to denote the oath taken by newly enlisted soldiers. When it came to be applied to Christian uses, the word retained the suggestions of both of those earlier employments. A sacrament was something set apart for sacred purposes; it was also, in certain cases, of the nature of a vow of self-consecration, resembling the oath of the Roman soldier (cf. Tertullian: ‘We were called to the warfare of the living God in our very response to the sacramental words,’ ad Mart. ill.). But the application and history of the word in the Christian Church were determined chiefly by the fact that in the Old Lat. and Vulg. VSS it was repeatedly employed imysterium, however, being employed more frequently) to render the Gr. mystirion, ‘a mystery.’ [Thus Vulg. tr. St. Paul’s ‘This mystery is great’ (Ephesians 5:32) by ‘Sacramentum hoc magnum est’ ; — a rendering that had not a little to do with the subsequent erection of marriage into a sacrament.] This identification of the idea of a sacrament with that of a mystery was carried still further by Tertullian, and was greatly fostered by the fact that about this time a tendency was rapidly growing in the Church to an eissimilation of Christian worship to the Mysteryworship of the Graeco- Roman world (see art. Mystery). Tertullian (end of 2nd cent, and beginning of 3rd) is the first writer to apply the name ‘sacrament’ to Baptism, the Eucharist, and other rites of the Christian Church. When Pliny (c. a.d. 112), in his account of the worship of the Christians of Bithynia, describea them at their morning meetings as ‘binding themselves by a sacramenium to commit no kind of crime’ (Ep. x. 96) , it has been suggested by some that he was using the word in the Christian sense, and was referring either to the baptismal vow or to participation in the Eucharist. The fact, however, that we do not find such a use of the word, even in Christian writers, for nearly a century afterwards makes this extremely unlikely: and the probability is that Pliny intended it in the old Roman sense of an oath or solemn obligation.

2. Nature and number. — (1) Though used especially Of Baptism and the Eucharist, the application of the term by Christian writers was at first exceedingly loose, for it was taken to describe not only all kinds of religious ceremonies, but even facts and doctrines of the Christian faith. The vagueness of prevailing notions is illustrated by Augustine’s remark that ‘signs pertaining to things Divine are called sacraments,’ and by his well-known definition of a sacrament as ‘the visible form of an invisible grace.’ It is otherwise illustrated by the fact that Hugo of St. Victor (12th cent.) enumerates about 30 sacraments that had been recognized in the Church. The Council of Trent defined the nature of a sacrament more closely, by laying it down that not all signs of sacred things have sacramental value, and that visible forms are sacraments only when they represent an invisible grace and become its channels. It further delimited the sacramental area by re-enacting in its 7th session (1547) a decision of the Council of Florence (1439) in which effect was for the first time authoritatively given to the suggestion of Peter Lombard (12th cent.) and other Schoolmen that the number of the sacraments should be fixed at 7, namely. Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony — a suggestion that was evidently infiuenced by the belief that 7 was a sacred number.

(2) In the Reformed Churches criticism of this scheme was based on the fact that it proceeds on no settled principle. The number 7 is perfectly arbitrary; while the definition of a sacrament is still so vague that anything but an arbitrary selection of particulars is impossible. While, therefore, the Reformers retained the term ‘sacrament’ as a convenient one to express the general idea that has to be drawn from the characteristics of the acts classed together under this name — a term, moreover, that is sanctioned by the usage of the Church from the days of Tertullian — they found the distinguishing mark of a sacrament in the fact of its being instituted by Christ Himself and enjoined by Him upon His followers. And as Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the only two rites for which this can be claimed, it follows that there are only two sacraments in the proper sense of the word. The uniqueness that belongs to these as resting upon Christ’s personal appointment and being bound up with His own words (Matthew 28:19, Mark 166; Matthew 26:26 "H, 1 Co 11:23–25) justifies us in separating them from all other rites and ceremonies whatsoever, however seemly and suggestive any of these may appear to be, and raises them to the dignity of forming an integral part of the historical revelation of God in Christ, and so of being not signs merely, but in very truth, in Augustine’s phrase, ‘the word made visible.’ A justification of this segregation of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper from all other rites, and their association together under a common name, is furnished in the NT by Ac 2 and 1 Corinthians 10:1–4. A further justification may perhaps be found in the fact that St. Paul traces an analogy between Circumcision and the Passover — the two most distinctive rites of the Old Covenant — on the one hand, and Baptism (Colossians 2:11) and the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:7 with ll^^) respectively, on the other. 3. Efficacy. — According to the Roman view, sacraments are efficacious ex opere operaio, i.e. by a power inherent in themselves as outward acts. The Reformed doctrine, on the other hand, maintains that though they are Divinely appointed channels of the heavenly grace, their benefits to the recipient are contingent upon subjective spiritual conditions, and above all upon the exercise of faith in Christ Himself. See, further. Baptism, Confibmation, Eucharist, Laying ON OF Hands. J. C. Lambert.